MARITIME MASTER PLAN

‘A Plan for the Waters of Baltimore’s Harbor’

Adopted: February 2, 2012

Prepared by: Jill M Lemke Economic Development Planner

Stephanie Rawlings-Blake Mayor

Thomas J. Stosur Director

Technical Advisory Committee Members: Andrew Nixon Rukert Terminals Corp. Bill Flohr Inner Harbor East Marina Brian Miller MD Port Administration Capt. Eric Nielsen Association of Maryland Pilots Cary Lynch General Ship Repair Chris Rowsom Living Classrooms Foundation, Historic Ships Frances Knauff Inner Harbor Dock Master Jon Romeo US Army Corp of Engineers, Baltimore District Kenneth Ropp MD DNR Waterway Improvement Program Lt Ron Houck US Coast Guard Mark Kreafle Sr Maryland Port Administration Nick Kelly MD DNR Critical Area Commission Paul Swenson Moran Towing, Inc Richard Hurley Citizen Representative Rick Mazmanian MD Port Administration Robert Cuthbertson MDE Tidal Wetlands Division Sharon Kempa Department of Real Estate Thomas J. Stosur Baltimore City Department of Planning

Technical Advisory Committee - Ad Hoc Members Adam Lindquist Waterfront Partnership, Inc. Arlisa Anderson Baltimore Development Corp. Barry Robinson Baltimore City Department of Transportation Beth Strommen Baltimore City Department of Planning Gary Letteron Baltimore City Department of Planning Irene Van Sant Baltimore Development Corp. Jill Lemke Baltimore City Department of Planning Laurie Schwartz Waterfront Partnership, Inc.

Special Thanks to: Bill Gillmore Baltimore Office of Promotion and the Arts Chris Streb Bio Habitats Inc. Ivor Quashie Baltimore City Department of Planning Jamie Kendrick Baltimore City Department of Transportation Lt. John "Marty" Cosgrove Baltimore City Fire Department Marianne Navarro Baltimore Development Corp. Robert Rushlow MDE Wetlands and Waterways Shawn Kiernan MD Port Administration Ted Laster Baltimore City Department of Real Estate Walter Horton Baltimore City Department of Real Estate

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan i The Maritime Master Plan A Plan for the Waters of Baltimore’s Harbor

Table of Contents:

INTRODUCTION 1 Background and Overview 1 Plan Goals 2 2012 Maritime Master Plan Update 3 THE PLANNING PROCESS 5 Current Conditions 5 Community Input 6 Proposals for Amendments 6 Future Amendments 7 HARBORWIDE POLICIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8 Harbor Management 8 Marine Traffic Assessments 9 Commercial Shipping 10 Marinas 14 Recreational Marinas 15 Industrial Marinas 18 Dry Storage Marinas (Boatels) 18 Small Craft Operations, Kayaks & Canoes 20 Water Taxis, Excursion Vessels, and Other Tour Vessels 21 Cruise Ship Terminals 24 Pier Head Lines 25 Water Quality (includes Floating Wetlands) 28 Utilities and Fire Safety 31 View Corridors 32 Historic Vessels 34 RECOMMENDATIONS BY LOCATION 36 Inner Harbor 36 Inner Harbor East 38 Key Highway 41 Key Highway Industrial Area 43 Fells Point 45 Canton 47 South Locust Point/Port Covington 50 Middle Branch 51 Fairfield 53 Hawkins Point 54

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan ii Table of Contents (Continued):

APPENDIX A – 2012 PROPOSAL DETAILS 55 Recreation Pier Marina 55 Downtown Sailing Center Dock Reconfiguration 56 Central Avenue Bridge 57 Harbor Point Marina 58 Entertainment Cruises Relocation 59 Fairfield Barge Terminal 60 Pier Extension, 1000 Key Highway 61 Safety & Signage Improvements 62 Harborview Floating Wetlands 63

APPENDIX B – 2003 PROPOSAL DETAILS 65

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Areas to be Updated 5 Table 2: Harbor Management Recommendations – Harbor Master 9 Table 3: Number of Boat Slips in Recreational Marinas 15 Table 4: Guidelines for New Marina Development 16 Table 5: Criteria for Approval – Dry Storage Marinas 19 Table 6: Guidelines for Small Craft Launch Points 21 Table 7: Guidelines for Water Taxi Stops & Tour Operations 23 Table 8: Guidelines for Cruise Ship Terminal Location 24 Table 9: Guidelines for Pier Head Line Extensions –Shipping Zone 27 Table 10: Guidelines for Pier Head Line Extensions – Safety Zone 27 Table 11: Guidelines for Floating Wetlands 29

LIST OF MAPS

Map 1: Commercial Shipping – Terminals and Industrial Marinas 13 Map 2: Recreational Marinas 17 Map 3: Water Taxi Stops 23 Map 4: Pier Head Lines and Inner Harbor Safety Zone 26 Map 5: Northwest Harbor View Corridors 33 Map 6: Middle Branch View Corridors 34 Map 7: Key Highway Marinas and Harborview Floating Wetland Area 42 Map 8: Fells Point Area View Corridors 46 Map 9: Middle Branch Open Space Map 52

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan iii Table of Contents (Continued):

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: MMP Context – The Waters of Baltimore Harbor 4 Figure 2: Aerial Image – South Locust Point Cruise Ship Terminal Area 24 Figure 3: Inner Harbor 36 Figure 4: Inner Harbor East 38 Figure 5: Key Highway 41 Figure 6: Key Highway Industrial Area 43 Figure 7: Fells Point 45 Figure 8: Canton 47 Figure 9: Middle Branch 51 Figure 10: Fairfield/Masonville Cove 53 Figure 11: Hawkins Point 54

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan iv The Maritime Master Plan A Plan for the Waters of Baltimore’s Harbor

INTRODUCTION

Background and Overview Baltimore’s Harbor is one of our greatest assets, attracting millions of visitors each year from across the region and around the world. The Harbor has always been a central force in Baltimore history, functioning as a major port for international shipping and boat building for over 300 years. Its history as a working port changed during the 1950’s, when American industry began to shift overseas. This led to fundamental changes in the structure of commercial shipping across the U.S.

In the early 1970’s, the Harbor’s beauty and vitality began to attract developers, residents, tourists and recreational boaters in ever-increasing numbers. The Harbor continued to hold on to its port industries as well, providing precious deep-water resources to viable commercial shipping and manufacturing businesses. As all of these interests increasingly competed for the same limited resource in the 1980’s, it became evident that a balance had to be struck to allow each of these economic development generators to coexist on the water, while maximizing safety.

The original Marina Master Plan was adopted in 1985, and then updated in 1989, to provide a framework for responsible management of the Harbor. Its goal was, and remains, to allow access to the water by recreational boaters; to protect and allow for growth of the commercial shipping industry; and to accomplish these while maximizing navigational safety for all Harbor users.

Over the next 14 years, the Harbor’s popularity continued to grow, causing more maritime congestion than had existed previously. These demands on the Harbor went far beyond traditional recreational boating, and included requests for tourism and transportation by large excursion vessels, historic ships, seaplanes and helicopters, kayaks and canoes, and personal watercraft (such as jet-ski’s).The City also experienced an increasing amount of interest in conversion of industrial land to mixed-use commercial and residential development that capitalized on valuable waterfront locations. Commercial shipping and manufacturing interests began to advocate for the maintenance of industrially-zoned lands along the waterfront and the deep-water assets necessary for maritime commerce. In an increasingly global economy, maritime shipping was becoming a critical component of the economy.

Management and balance between the many water-based interests, therefore, became of paramount importance to the City’s well-being. As a result of these changing, and often conflicting, development pressures, then Mayor Martin O’Malley realized the need to take a

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 1 fresh look at the Harbor’s future, and in 2002, charged the Department of Planning with once again updating the Marina Master Plan.

In order to provide expertise regarding the technical aspects of navigation and boating, the Department of Planning re-activated the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), an advisory committee of marine professionals. Membership of the TAC included marine professionals such as the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the United States Coast Guard, the Maryland Port Administration, commercial and recreational boating representatives, water- based business owners, appropriate City agencies, and others. The 2003 plan had an expanded policy focus that was reflected in its new name, the Maritime Master Plan.

The 2003 Maritime Master Plan called for a six-year review and update of the Plan in order to adapt to changing demands for the use of this valuable natural and civic resource. To accomplish this, in 2011, Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake again charged the Department of Planning to review progress toward the goals and strategies set forth in the approved plan, and the Technical Advisory Committee was reconvened to review progress on attainment of plan goals and objectives, collect proposed amendments and update the plan.

Plan Goals The overall Goal is to provide a framework for the safe and environmentally responsible management of competing interests in Baltimore’s Harbor in order to control growth of the recreational boating industry while protecting the integrity and growth of commercial shipping and industry in the Port of Baltimore.

A number of key principles stem from this overall goal, and include the following:

 Separating commercial and recreational activities in the Harbor to the extent necessary and possible.  Considering the appropriate boat slip capacity and maximums for each site.  Minimizing the potential for boating accidents.  Minimizing congestion.  Safeguarding areas of present and future commercial port development.  Optimizing economic benefits to the City of both recreational boating and commercial shipping.  Accommodating repair, service and storage facilities for recreational and commercial vessels.  Promoting programs that educate recreational boaters about commercial shipping and boating safety.  Developing appropriate criteria for the location and design of marinas and other recreational boating activities and tourist activities.  Preserving water access and water views.

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 2  Protecting the environment from pollutants and ensuring State and federal regulations are adhered to in a manner consistent with the unique characteristics of the Harbor.  Protecting the proper operation and accessibility of storm drains and other utilities.  Providing adequate access for police and fire services.  Assuring adequate parking and other land-side needs.  Defining management responsibilities for the Harbor and management tools for special events.  Evaluating the appropriateness of seaplanes and heliports on the water.  Developing and adopting appropriate regulations to enforce the rules of navigational safety and management of the Harbor area.  Proposing appropriate new uses for the currently-underutilized Middle Branch of the Patapsco River.

2012 Maritime Master Plan Update The Maritime Master Plan will serve as both a guide for future policy decisions related to uses and activities at the Harbor and a legal document which identifies the location of approved marinas and navigational safety areas. The Department of Planning staff, in consultation with the TAC, evaluated the goals and objectives of the 2003 Plan, in order to begin the 2011 update. In doing so, it found that, while many of the policies and strategies are still relevant and in need of implementation, many advances have been made.

Accomplishments Since 2003:  Consolidation of the Water Taxi System.  Expansion of the Inner Harbor Task Force.  Protection of Commercial Shipping through the Maritime Industrial Zoning Overlay District (MIZOD).  Creation of a draft zoning code that is more balanced; clearly defines maritime uses; protects maritime industrial areas; and encourages high density, mixed-use communities and transit oriented development where appropriate.

The comprehensive program of policies and strategies contained in this plan recognizes that although control of marina development is critical to preserving safety and navigational space, many other factors also need to be considered in the interest of managing competing activities and interests within the Harbor.

Key Policies and Strategies for management and plan implementation:  Baltimore Harbor Management  Navigational Safety  Land Use Policy Impacts

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 3 Figure 1. MMP Context – The Waters of Baltimore’s Harbor

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 4 THE PLANNING PROCESS

As previous Administrations had done, Mayor Stephanie Rawlings Blake asked the Department of Planning in 2011 to convene a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), to be composed of marine professionals who could assist the Planning Department with updating the Plan. The resulting committee of marine professionals included representatives from the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the United States Coast Guard, the Maryland Port Administration, and appropriate City agencies, as well as commercial and recreational boating representatives, water-based business owners, and others.

Department of Planning staff and the TAC first came together in May of 2011. They began by updating the goals and objectives of the plan, based on their knowledge of the Harbor – both anecdotal and documented. The group reviewed existing conditions and other information in preparation for hearing proposed amendments. Finally, the Department of Planning, in conjunction with the TAC, articulated a process that would allow for submission and review of proposed amendments by waterfront property owners and their representatives.

Throughout 2011, in consultation with the TAC, the Department of Planning reviewed existing conditions at the Harbor using interviews with knowledgeable parties, past development records and field observation. With this information, the objectives and strategies of the plan have been updated and reorganized to reflect current conditions in the Harbor.

Current Conditions While the 2003 revision was significant in its clarification of issues and its response to a significant growth in demand for land side and water side uses of the Harbor, the 2012 update is far more limited in its scope. Land use protections implemented since 2003 succeeded in balancing competing development pressures and provided a level of protection for maritime industrial uses of both the land and the water. In addition, a decrease in development pressures and recreational boating traffic, resulting from rising fuel prices and a national economic downturn that began in 2008, alleviated many of the pressures that were being placed on Baltimore’s harbor during preceding years.

Table 1 – Areas to be Updated

 Review progress since adoption of the 2003 Maritime Master Plan.  Update to reflect new water taxi locations and services.  City of Baltimore proposed amendments.  Proposed amendments from harbor stakeholders and property owners.  Map updates to reflect changes since 2003 (if any).

Recognizing that the Harbor’s popularity will continue to grow over time, particularly as the economy begins to recover, nearly all of the policies and strategies in the 2003 Maritime Master Plan have been retained. The Harbor is a limited resource, and will continue to be

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 5 challenged by limited availability of commercial deep-water infrastructure, public docking space and available anchorages, as well as resources to enforce the regulations and manage new proposals and activities.

Community Input The Baltimore Harbor is an important public resource, that is, and should remain available for use by all the citizens of Baltimore. For this reason, public input was encouraged from the beginning of this process and continued through adoption of the Maritime Master Plan. The draft plan was reviewed and informed by input from citizens at a public meeting held in January, 2012. The City made a determined effort to invite and encourage all interested parties to attend the public forum, and the subsequent Planning Commission hearing, by contacting waterfront property owners, community organizations surrounding the harbor, and existing harbor marinas.

Proposals for Amendments Early in the planning process, the Department of Planning invited interested parties to submit proposed amendments to the existing Marina Master Plan. Ten amendments for specific projects or issues were submitted covering a variety of interests, including new or expanded marinas, extended piers, new industrial piers, a new bridge, floating wetlands, and policy improvements to ensure harbor safety. Applicants presented their amendments in person to the TAC and Department of Planning staff, allowing members to ask questions. Following discussions with the applicants, Department of Planning staff and the TAC carefully reviewed each amendment using a set of criteria developed from the articulated goals and objectives of the Plan.

At the end of the review process, the TAC, in conjunction with Department of Planning staff, made the following recommendations to Planning Commission:

PROPOSAL TAC Recommendation Planning Commission Decision Recreation Pier Marina Disapproval Disapproved Downtown Sailing Center Dock Approval Approved Reconfiguration Central Avenue Bridge Approval w/ Conditions Approved w/ Conditions Harbor Point Marina Disapproval Disapproved Entertainment Cruises Relocation Disapproval Disapproved Fairfield Alt. Energy Park Barge Terminal Approval Approved w/ Conditions Egan Marine Pier Extension Disapproval Disapproved Safety Improvement Recommendations Disapproval Disapproved Floating Wetland Guidelines Approval Approved Harborview Floating Wetlands Approval with Conditions Approved w/ Conditions

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 6 The TAC also heard a number of presentations regarding current and future projects that could impact future harbor management. Some projects identified by the committee warranted further review, but did not require or were not adequately prepared for full plan amendments. These presentations included the following:

 Chase Pier Waterfalls and Constructed Wetland  Comprehensive Review of Water Taxi System & planning for future stops o Harborview Stop o Tide Point Stop o Clinton Street Stop  Fort McHenry Canoe and Kayak docking proposals as part of the Star Spangled Trail (2 alternatives).

In addition to the above proposals, the TAC drafted and approved the following guidelines for floating wetlands installations, a new and innovative use of the water that could help achieve improved water quality in the Harbor.

The recommendations of the Technical Advisory Committee, with the updated Maritime Master Plan, were presented to the Planning Commission on February 2, 2012. The Planning Commission agreed with the recommendations of the TAC, with one minor addition, and voted to approve and adopt the Maritime Master Plan as amended.

Future Amendments As adopted by the Planning Commission, the 2012 Maritime Master Plan will be reviewed and amendments may be considered on an annual basis by the TAC. If the TAC recommends major amendments during these annual reviews, to be held in November of each year, those amendments will be presented to the Planning Commission for adoption. The goal of this review process is to ensure that this plan remains current, and can be used as a guiding document for all relevant projects and proposals. In addition, the provisions of the Maritime Master Plan will be substantially updated following future updates to the City of Baltimore Comprehensive Master Plan, to reflect any new or changing development priorities.

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 7 HARBOR-WIDE POLICIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Harbor Management With such a wide variety of activities taking place in a relatively small area, strong harbor management is a vital component to maximizing safety for all those who live, recreate, work or conduct business on the water and its shoreline. Unfortunately, confusing rules, split responsibilities and limited budgets for enforcement have weakened the City’s ability to proactively manage the activity in Baltimore’s Harbor, exacerbating the potential for conflicts that could ultimately compromise the safety of the Harbor’s users.

Existing Conditions Harbor rules and procedures are articulated in not one, but two separate areas of the Baltimore City Code. Article 10 defines the City’s legal management responsibilities at the Harbor. However, Ordinance 80-141 added “Rules and Regulations for the Waters of the Inner Harbor” which gives enforcement responsibilities to the Commissioner for Housing and Community Renewal, conflicting with other provisions of Article 10. In addition the, “Recreation and Parks Rules and Regulations” presents a third set of rules governing the Harbor.

In addition to regulatory inconsistencies, the three separate oversight positions defined within these regulations and other policy documents create additional regulatory challenges. The Harbor Engineer, Harbor Master, and Dock Master are all legally charged by the City’s Code and policies, with duties and responsibilities for the Harbor. The Harbor Engineer position has been eliminated from the budget. The Harbor Master position has been vacant for over a decade. Due to budget constraints, only the Dock Master position has been filled in recent years. The Dock Master’s responsibilities are limited to collecting docking fees where appropriate at the Inner Harbor and assisting with the coordination of visiting ships. To make up for the lack of central oversight, responsibilities for separate areas of the waterfront have been divided and given to agencies already working in those areas, such as the Office of Real Estate, Department of Transportation, Baltimore Development Corporation and Department of Public Works. Each of these City agencies has their own unique responsibilities, adding to the confused roles and ineffective oversight. Meanwhile, no agency currently is taking responsibility for proactively managing docking at the Fells Point waterfront.

In an attempt to provide better coordinated oversight of activity in the Inner Harbor, the City created the Inner Harbor Task Force in the 1990’s, comprised of agency heads of all Departments having some jurisdiction and/or responsibility in the Harbor. The Task Force has endeavored in recent years to make sound, consistent decisions regarding development and use of the Inner Harbor area. As recommended in the 2003 Maritime Master Plan, this task force was reorganized, under the leadership of the Baltimore Development Corporation. The Inner Harbor Task Force continues to meet on a bi-monthly basis. As a result, this Master Plan should continue to serve as a guide for their decision making, particularly in the absence of a Harbor Master and a clarification of legal responsibilities.

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 8 Recommendations: 1) Create a Harbor Master position responsible for all maritime related issues for the entire Harbor.  This position should report directly to the Mayor’s Office. This is necessary because of the high level of decisions made along the waterfront, the number of people doing business there and the need for quick decision-making.  The Harbor Master should have staff to assist with the work to be completed, including the existing staff in the Dock Master’s office, and should be charged with those duties and recommendations outlined in Table 2.

Table 2. Harbor Management Recommendations – Harbor Master Harbor Master Recommended Duties and Responsibilities  Collect docking fees.  Coordinate with the Office of Real Estate on waterfront leases and collections.  Raise funds for repair and improvement of public waterfront areas and piers through grants and other development efforts.  Manage daily boating issues such as illegally docked boats, boat pollution, user conflicts, etc.  Coordinate applicable activities with the United States Coast Guard, State Department of Natural Resources, Fire Department, and Police Department.  Enforce boating safety regulations.  Schedule and coordinate visiting ships and boats.  Coordinate special events working with the Baltimore Office of Promotion and others.  Staff the Inner Harbor Task Force.  Coordinate navigational space between commercial and recreational boating.  Coordinate expansion of the Harbor boundaries by encouraging use of the Middle Branch and other underutilized spaces in Baltimore’s Harbor.  Coordinate interagency issues and establish policy for more seamless interface between land and water developments/activities.

2) The Inner Harbor Task Force should utilize the guidelines set forth in this document, and the most recent Inner Harbor Master Plan to assist in making decisions that are consistent, and that contribute to the Harbor’s sound future without sacrificing safety. In the future, the Task Force should only make decisions regarding broad policy for the Harbor, leaving the day-to-day operations and interpretation of that policy to the Harbor Master. The Harbor Master should serve as lead staff to the Task Force, providing analysis and recommendations for all policy changes under consideration. In addition, a separate sub-committee of navigation experts should be established on the Inner Harbor Task Force to serve as a resource to the Harbor Master and to the Task Force as necessary. Among other issues, this sub-committee will review every pier

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 9 headline change and requests for new marinas and work with the Harbor Master to make formal recommendations to the Task Force. An annual meeting of the current Technical Advisory Committee will serve in this capacity until such actions can be taken.

3) The existing provisions of the City Code, ordinances and other rules governing the Harbor should be consolidated to create one cohesive set of regulations that is easily understood and strictly enforced.

Marine Traffic Assessments During previous Maritime Master Plan updates, marine traffic studies were conducted to determine where and when congestion occurred, and to identify potential safety conflicts between recreational and commercial vessels. Following interviews with TAC members and other marine professionals, and in an environment where public funds for such research are scarce, it was determined that conditions had not changed enough since the 2003 studies to warrant additional study. This Maritime Master Plan, therefore, continues to acknowledge and accept previous recommendations for minimizing marine vessel congestion and conflicts that would have an adverse impact on overall safety and the commercial and industrial shipping of Baltimore, based on the current volume of vessels. Policy and strategy recommendations dealing with safety and congestion, therefore, remain relatively unchanged.

Recommendations 1) Investigate and, where feasible, implement ways to alleviate congestion in the Inner Harbor basin. This area has the highest concentration of boating activity, and is the tightest space. Baltimore’s Harbor is a series of cul-de-sacs rather than a linear area that can be passed through. It is especially important to focus on navigational issues in this area. Some recommended steps include the following:  Control/enforce the paddleboat safety area; maintain visible water markers to denote the safety area boundary and/or have personnel patrolling on the water.

 Establish better control of recreational boats by creating a management entity with authority to enforce rules and levy fines or tickets.

 Explore lowering the speed limit within the Inner Harbor basin to four (4) knots per hour due to the heavy congestion in the confined space. 2) Greater Baltimore Harbor has the capacity to accommodate more vessels, provided that the width of the channels is not compromised. It is important to discourage proposals to expand piers beyond the existing approved pier headlines, and to discourage any filling of navigational space with structures such as permanently moored barges. (See Section H, Pier Headlines)

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 10 3) The current six (6) - knot speed limit is an important component of boating safety in the Baltimore Harbor. The slow speed limit from Ft. McHenry inland allows the larger vessels to more safely mix with slower moving and smaller vessels such as kayaks and canoes. This speed limit should stay in place or be lowered, and continue to be actively enforced. 4) A setback of not less than 125 feet from turning basins or secondary channels shall be maintained, with greater area allowed when necessary for the safe maneuvering of commercial vessels. 5) The width of access channels shall be five (5) times the average beam of vessels expected to use the channel and no less than 80 feet. 6) Moorings or anchorages outside of breakwaters and wave attenuators shall be restricted in areas where there is heavy congestion or where the facility is located in close proximity to shipping channels. It is necessary that channels not be further restricted by allowing these facilities in such locations.

Commercial Shipping Existing Conditions The port and its related industries remain a critical part of the City’s economy and must not only be preserved, but be allowed to grow. Port operators and regulators remain concerned about the loss of deep water slips, which directly relates to the increase in waterfront mixed- use development, marina development, and recreational boating traffic. These were the concerns that led to the original creation and update of the 1985 and 1989 Marina Master Plans. These plans led to limits on marina development in specific areas to safeguard shipping from potential conflicts with recreational boaters and to preserve deep-water access for commercial uses.

Port operators have always been particularly concerned about allowing marinas to be built too close to shipping channels, industrial turning basins and anchorages. Commercial vessels could be liable for damages caused by their wakes and prop wash. It is important to note that a commercial vessel need not collide with a slip or recreational craft to be considered liable for damages.

Commercial shipping has changed over the years, and is preparing to change again with the widening of the Panama Canal by 2014. While commercial shipping has had ups and downs, generally reflecting changes in the overall economy, Baltimore is still a viable port and an attractive location for cargo. The overall number of vessels visiting Baltimore’s public and private terminals has remained fairly steady over the past decade and had been increasing until the recent economic recession which caused a sharp decline in 2009. Yet cargo volumes are slowly returning to pre-recession levels, and as a result, the Maryland Port Administration and the private sector are concerned that the Baltimore region may actually run short of available waterfront land suitable for port uses. It is important to note that port activity requires deep channels and waterfront access; they cannot function inland. This makes it especially

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 11 important to preserve as much of this available land as possible for the Port to maintain its activities. (See Map 1- Commercial Shipping Terminals)

Recommendations 1) Preserve Maritime Industrial Zoning Overlay District (MIZOD) protection zones that were created to protect commercial shipping and waterfront industry. 2) Continue to enforce marina development restrictions that respect turning basins, industrial facilities, shipping channels, and safe distances from large commercial shipping vessels, as well as requiring wave attenuators to minimize risk to marinas and recreational boats from movement of these large vessels. 3) Continue to require and promote education for recreational boaters sharing the water with commercial vessels. 4) Enforce strict guidelines for altering pier headlines as detailed elsewhere in this report. 5) Support the establishment of a Maritime Industrial zoning classification as part of TransForm Baltimore, the comprehensive zoning code rewrite for Baltimore City.

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 12 Map 1. Commercial Shipping – Terminals and Industrial Marinas

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 13 Marinas The 1989 Marina Master Plan focused largely on specifically defining different types of marinas, and establishing guidelines for their location as well as suggested parking requirements. Those “Marina" definitions were added to the Zoning Code of Baltimore City. Before defining marinas, the 1989 Plan first created three categories of marine facilities: Shipyard, Private Pier and Marina.

The Shipyard definition was to define the heavy industrial use associated with the traditional activities of ship building and repair, as distinct from uses which serve the recreational boating industry.

A Private Pier was defined to accommodate the riparian access rights of property owners. Property owners and industrial users are given more leeway in the use of their property with these designations. Private piers, as defined, were not regulated in previous Marina Master Plans, and will not be regulated by this plan. They must, however, obtain the proper State and federal permits for any work in or over the water. Shipyards and private piers with docking facilities for four or fewer recreational boats are not considered marinas under these definitions, and are therefore not regulated by the Maritime Master Plan.

Shipyard Any facility or area that is designed or used for the manufacture, assembly or repair of ships, barges or boats. Private Pier Facilities with four (4) or fewer slips, designed and used exclusively for private, recreational purposes by the property owner. Marina Any facility that provides for the lease or purchase of five (5) or more in-water moorings, wet slips or dry docking for recreational water craft as either a principal or accessory use.

Within the categories, further definition was given to marinas, dividing these into three types: recreational, industrial and dry storage (boatel). These categories and their definitions are still relevant but will be altered slightly to reflect modern zoning distinctions. The marina definitions proposed by TransForm Baltimore, in addition to the three above, are outlined below.

Recreational Any facility to moor, berth, launch or store five (5) or Marina: Accessory more watercraft, for the exclusive use of the occupants of properties within three hundred (300) feet of a marina entrance. Marina: Dry Any marina that provides for the long-term dry storage of Storage recreational watercraft in racks or other storage systems. Marina Entrance The point(s) where pedestrian access is provided from land to marina docks.

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 14

Marina: A designated area at which recreational watercraft may Recreational Boat be launched or at which transient water craft may tie up, Launch be launched, or have repairs made for less than one (1) week at a time. Marina: Any facility that provides for the lease or purchase of five Recreational (5) or more in-water moorings, wet slips or dry docking for recreational watercraft. Marine Terminal That part of a port or harbor with facilities for docking, cargo-handling, and storage. (replaces Industrial Marina) Water Freight A facility, including docks, piers, wharves, storage sheds Terminal used for waterborne commodities, and rail and truck facilities servicing, or related to, a water freight terminal.

Recreational Marinas Currently, according to permit counts, 2,164 boat slips exist throughout the Harbor in 24 recreational marinas. More than 950 additional slips are permitted in these facilities but are not yet constructed (see Table 3). Each slip represents a potential vessel that will contribute to Harbor marine traffic, and environmental degradation of water quality. The large numbers of recreational boaters also create potential navigational hazards by occupying navigational channels. (See Map 4 - Recreational Marinas)

Table 3 – Number of Boat Slips in Recreational Marinas # Name Existing slips Permitted slips 1 Inner Harbor Marina 158 158 2 Ritz Carlton Marina 13 13 3 Townhomes at Harborview 0 290 3A Harborview Marina 278 278 4 Downtown Sailing Center 20 20 5 Inner Harbor East 204 252 6 Living Classrooms Marina 48 48 7 Fells Landing 0 150 8 Brown’s Wharf 32 32 9 Harbor’s Edge 6 6 10 Belt’s Landing Wharf 49 65 11 Henderson’s Wharf 75 300 12 Swann’s Wharf 52 52 13 Union Wharf 0 52 14 Thames Point 53 53 15 Chester Cove 40 40 16 Tserkis (Bayview) 52 52

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 15 Table 3 – Number of Boat Slips in Recreational Marinas (cont) 16a North Shore at Anchorage 0 127 17 Anchorage 576 576 18 Shipyard 20 20 19 Lighthouse Point Marina 488 544 20 Tindeco Wharf 20 20 21 Canton Cove 30 30 22 Canton Crossing Marina 0 200 23 Port Covington 0 400 24 Ferry Bar Marina 0 34 25 Baltimore Yacht Basin/Nicks Seafood 197 197 26 Middle Branch Moorings 340 340 Total Slips 2751 4349

Existing Conditions One of the challenges of this Plan is to manage the demand for recreational marina slips over the next ten to twenty years and to allow for the “right” number of slips without creating conditions which are hazardous to recreational boating or detrimental to commercial shipping. In 2003, the City hired a consulting firm to determine existing boat traffic conditions and to help the TAC determine the Patapsco River basin’s capacity for additional recreational boating. To supplement the consultant’s findings, the Department of Planning also conducted a video analysis of the innermost tip of the Inner Harbor. Among other goals, the video analysis helped to identify the level of activity and monitor user conflicts and safety issues at the Inner Harbor’s west wall and the Inner Harbor basin. This area has the least amount of navigational space but is also the greatest boater attraction.

Table 4 – Guidelines for New Marina Development  Relationship to adjacent land uses  Relationship to shipping and commercial boating activity  Need/capacity of area to accommodate new marina  Size of proposed marina  Land-based impacts including parking, traffic and noise  Navigational impacts such as turning basins  Relationship to slips approved or existing in the Marina Master Plan  Environmental Impacts from fuel pumps, pump outs, etc.  Relationship to and impacts on existing utilities  Plans for safety and security  Impact on view corridors  Maintenance of Pier Headline or Maritime Master Plan Navigational Safety Line

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 16 Map 2. Recreational Marinas

Recommendations 1) Based on past harbor traffic studies, the TAC determined that the number of vessels was not an issue so much as the available space for the proposed water uses and the view corridors from major land-side streets and locations. Because these major considerations differ depending on location, each marina must be considered and decisions made on a case-by-case basis. 2) New piers, marinas or other facilities should not block or create a negative impact on the existing channel marking system, including the range light at Fort McHenry. 3) Marinas shall not extend beyond the pier head or combined pier head/bulkhead line, or be located closer than 400 feet from maintained primary shipping channels, whichever is the greater distance from the shoreline (See section on Pier Headlines). 4) In coves and inlets, between finger piers, and in other confined bodies of water, marinas shall not be constructed in such a manner as to impede access to the main body of water by commercial or recreational boat traffic. Additionally, no pier construction or docking location may interfere with water access of adjacent property owners.

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 17 In order to foster consistent review of all proposals, guidelines developed by the TAC were used to review individual proposed amendments (see Table 4). These guidelines should be used whenever a new recreational marina is proposed.

Industrial Marinas Industrial marina areas may be so designated if the parcel has industrial zoning and the proposed designation of an industrial marina area is compatible with neighboring landside uses. Under TransForm Baltimore, the Zoning Code Rewrite, “industrial marina” will no longer be a defined use. It will be replaced by the definitions discussed above, including “shipyard” and “freight terminal.” The generic use of the term in this Master Plan will encompass each of these as an allowable use.

Shipyard (Industrial Any facility or area that is designed or used for the manufacture, Marina) assembly or repair of ships, barges or boats. Freight Terminal A facility for freight pick up, transfer or distribution for rail, truck or shipping transport.

In areas designated for industrial marinas, activities such as repair and manufacture of boats are permitted. Sales connected with such repair and manufacturing of boats are also permitted. Wet slips and dry storage are allowed as accessory uses to repair and manufacturing operations. No retail boat sales or leasing of recreational marina slips are allowed.

Existing Conditions There are two shipyards in the Baltimore Harbor: the Baltimore Marine Center repair shop at Clinton Street and General Ship Repair Corporation on Key Highway, which qualifies as both an industrial marina and a shipyard. Both of these facilities meet the requirements of marine repair facilities as set forth in the 1989 Plan. Since the 2003 Maritime Master Plan, the shipyard at Lighthouse Point and the shipyard at Tidewater Marine on Key Highway have been closed or converted to other uses.

Recommendations The existing industrial marina and shipyard operations should remain in the Harbor to serve the large number of boats here. New industrial marinas, if properly located are welcome.

Dry Storage Marina (Boatel) While they generate a higher level of water activity than industrial marinas, dry storage marinas or boatels may not generate as much boating activity as recreational marinas, depending on their location and surrounding land uses. The parking requirements may also be less if they stand alone as part of an industrial marina.

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 18

Marina: Dry Any marina that provides for the long-term dry storage of Storage recreational watercraft in racks or other storage systems.

Existing Conditions Only one dry storage marina exists in the Baltimore Harbor at the shipyard at Lighthouse Point. This facility has capacity for 200 boats, and is associated with the Lighthouse Point recreational marina. Dry storage marinas share some of the characteristics of industrial marinas and recreational marinas. Their unique conditions and resulting issues must be addressed before any additional locations can be approved. The 1989 Marina Master Plan identified a comprehensive list of criteria for location and design for dry storage marinas that should be followed for the proper selection of locations for these facilities. (See Table 5)

Table 5 – Criteria for Approval Dry Storage Marinas Dry Storage Marinas can be so designated if the parcel is zoned M-1, M-2, M-3 (industrial) and the following criteria are met:  Such designation shall not conflict with the water quality or wildlife habitat objectives of the City’s Critical Area Management Program;  Dry storage marina facilities shall not be located immediately adjacent to land uses with the potential for significant air emissions, toxic or corrosive discharges, or the open storage of bulk materials;  The proposed dry storage marina shall not displace an existing deep water use; and  The proposed dry storage marina does not conflict with nearby water-dependent industrial uses.

In addition, dry storage marinas must meet the following design requirements:  The boatel shall be designed such that the maneuvering of incoming and outgoing recreational boats does not interfere with commercial shipping;  Adequate channel and fairway area shall be provided to accommodate normal peak boat lift use as well as any other marina activity, if permitted;  Adequate temporary tie-up space shall be provided to serve peak recovery periods to prevent interference with the free flow of navigation;  Adequate transportation for boats between the boatel and the water should be provided based on capacity; and  The boatel structures shall avoid, to the extent possible, the Critical Area Buffer.

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 19 Small Craft Operations, Kayaks and Canoes Existing Conditions The use of kayaks and canoes is gaining popularity throughout the country as a sport and a relaxing leisure activity. This is also true here in Baltimore, as these much smaller vessels share areas of the Harbor in increasing numbers. While some of these are single users, others like the Canton Kayak Club are organized and provide kayaks for club member usage at designated points throughout the Harbor. A number of other organized boating groups also operate in the Harbor including the paddle boats on the edge of the Pratt Street promenade in front of the World Trade Center, the Downtown Sailing Center on Key Highway, and the Living Classrooms Foundation sailing programs. But these small vessels are slow-moving and difficult to see, and therefore, create a potential safety hazard. Harbor management and control are needed to allow the clubs and small boaters to operate safely.

During the 2003 update, a Small Craft/Recreational Boat Launch Subcommittee of the TAC looked closely at these issues as well as issues particular to boat launches. In their discussion, they noted the following areas of concern:  Education is needed for the operators of the smaller vessels and for the influx of transient vessels. Small craft need to be aware that larger vessels cannot stop or maneuver quickly, and be especially careful in the shipping channels. They should also know legal docking locations and posted speed limits.  City budgets are insufficient for boat launch maintenance. Alternative funding sources such as the Maryland Department of Natural Resources need to be explored.  The Middle Branch is home to a boat launch area which is underutilized.

Recommendations 1) No official kayak or small craft launch points should be located on City-owned piers except where there are already identified public boat launches or the promenade. Kayaks and canoes should be treated like all other boats, and dock in available areas in existing identified public docking spaces. The public piers and promenade are for everyone. Allotting a special spot for one type of vessel or a private club is against recommended policy. All available promenade space should be reserved for pedestrians.

2) No facility that proposes to rent or lease small personal watercraft by the hour or day to the general public, including but not limited to paddle boats, jet ski’s, and kayaks, is permitted unless specifically identified within this plan. These operations create unique challenges to navigational safety because the of the varying skill levels of the operators and the maneuverability and speed of the craft. Any proposals for these types of operations must be carefully reviewed according to the guidelines in this document.

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 20

3) Private Kayak Club docking and operations may make arrangements with private property owners as long as the arrangements are consistent with this document. Kayak and canoe docking should not be located on piers with water taxi stops for safety reasons. 4) All small craft, including Canton Kayak Club members, should avoid all areas with shipping, heavy recreational boat traffic, water taxi stops and shipping channels. If these areas must be traversed, small craft should spend as little time as possible in these areas. 5) The TAC recommends the Kayak Club continue their training program for members regarding safety. This should be refined based on TAC recommendations and should refer regularly to United States Coast Guard and Maryland Department of Natural Resources safety codes so that safety regulations and recommendations are updated as needed. 6) Future expansions of the Kayak Club and/or other small craft organizations should be encouraged to locate in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River. It is much safer for small craft and is currently underutilized for boating activity. 7) In order to assure fair and consistent review of small craft operations and launch points in the Harbor, the TAC developed guidelines for reviewing these operations individually. (See Table 6) 8) One paddle boat location is permitted in this plan. It is limited to the Inner Harbor Basin and must have enclosed navigational space, and safety personnel or “chase boats” as identified in the Inner Harbor section. 9) Private individuals may launch their craft at approved public launch sites.

Table 6 – Guidelines for Small Craft Launch Point Locations  Compatibility with commercial shipping activity  Level of safety and education training of small craft users  Relationship to other launch points  Maneuverability and speed of small craft  Water quality as it relates to public health

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 21 Water Taxis, Excursion and Other Tour Vessels Existing Conditions In recent years, requests for tourist transit have taken a variety of forms from water taxi services to requests for large excursion vessels, seaplanes, helicopters and others.

The water taxi services are important to pedestrian movement in the harbor. When first created, in the mid-1970’s, their mission was to move people beyond the Harbor to other venues in the City. Since then, the taxis have provided such ease of movement that they have helped to move the conceptual Harbor boundaries outward as they have connected the Inner Harbor with surrounding areas. Today, water taxis move about 600,000 people each year, and are an effective transportation mode moving people into, and out of the Inner Harbor.

Prior to the 2003 Maritime Master Plan, the Harbor was host to two water taxi services instead of one. Since then, the water taxi system was consolidated to a single operator working under contract with the Department of Transportation to provide key tourist and commuter water taxi services throughout the inner harbor. (See Map 3 – Water Taxi Stops)

Other excursion vessels operating in the Harbor include large tour vessels and high speed tour boats. In the past, requests were made for a seaplane operation and a heliport and sightseeing operation. Each of these vessel operations would create additional challenges to maintaining water and navigational safety, minimizing congestion, and preserving the most attractive qualities of the Harbor. Any requests for such vessels must be reviewed carefully in accordance with the guidelines and recommendations provided in this chapter.

Recommendations 1) A comprehensive water taxi system with a clear purpose and vision should be maintained and reviewed under the authority of the Department of Transportation. This vision will assist the Inner Harbor Task Force and other decision makers in developing appropriate language for wharfage agreements, promoting safety and enforcing rules. 2) The development of new water taxi stops and excursion operations must be scrutinized carefully and decisions made using the guidelines developed by the TAC. (See Table 7) 3) All new proposed transit, excursion or aircraft operations in the Harbor should require approval by the Inner Harbor Task Force or other policy review group created to regulate the Harbor. The Inner Harbor Task Force should review any proposed tourist or transit operation using the guidelines in Table 7.

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 22 Table 7 - Guidelines for Water Taxi Stops and Other Excursion and Tour Vessel Operations  Loading areas must avoid potential land side conflicts (parking/pedestrian queuing and movements).  Locations must seek to minimize potential safety hazards, conflicts and compatibility issues. When assessing particular locations, the following must be taken into consideration:  Purpose of boats i.e. transit, excursion, educational, etc.  Impact on view corridors  Number of vessels and frequency of stops  Navigational hazards in or around stops  Need for stop  Overall safety of the proposed facility  Compliance with existing wharfage agreements and leases  Landing/Take-Off Zones (aircraft)  Noise levels and impacts on surrounding land uses

Map 3. Water Taxi Stops

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 23 Cruise Ship Terminals Existing Conditions The 2003 Maritime Master Plan update was completed at a time when the Baltimore cruise industry was just beginning to develop, and the TAC made recommendations regarding potential locations for a Baltimore cruise ship terminal. Among the proposed Maritime Master Plan amendments were three proposals to develop a cruise ship terminal at Harbor Point (formerly Allied Chemical), at Piers 8 and 9 in North Locust Point, and at Canton Crossing. Since then, South Locust Point was chosen as the preferred location.

Baltimore’s proximity to major markets, particularly those in Washington DC, Philadelphia and Southern New Jersey, is very attractive to the cruise ship industry. The Maryland Port Administration (MPA) has operated a dedicated cruise ship terminal at the South Locust Point marine terminal since 2006. The Cruise Maryland terminal is a retrofitted 60,000 square foot shed with ample surface parking on 14 acres immediately off of Interstate 95. The terminal operates year-round and is called on by two major lines that offer cruises to the Bahamas, Bermuda, the Caribbean, and New England/Canada. In addition, two additional lines visit Baltimore as port calls throughout the year. Cruising from the Port of Baltimore has been highly successful. In 2011, 251,889 people sailed on 105 cruises, exceeding the previous record of 210,549 on 90 cruises set in 2010.

In 2010 the MPA commissioned a market study which found that more cruises could be supported from Baltimore if a second dedicated terminal were constructed. The report indicated that North Locust Point and South Locust Point would be ideal for the development of a second terminal. At present, the MPA is not planning for the creation of a second cruise terminal; however it may do so in the future. For any proposed cruise terminal development, the previously established guidelines for the consideration of cruise terminal locations would be used to guide future decision-making.

Table 8 – Guidelines for Cruise Ship Terminal Location  Traffic impact on neighborhoods/direct access from highways  Capacity for handling parking in a reasonable way on site  Impact on existing marine infrastructure and marine related maintenance

Figure 2. Aerial Image – South Locust Point/ Baltimore Cruise Ship Terminal

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 24 Pier Head Lines Existing Conditions Throughout this document, we have emphasized the need to protect navigational space to maximize safety for both recreational boaters and commercial vessels. One tool created to protect this space was the “pier headline,” originally established by the Secretary of War in the 1800’s to delineate the limit to which a property owner may extend into public waters. It is defined by Article 10 of the Baltimore City Code as “the limiting lines beyond which no structure shall extend.” The pier head line is shown on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers map “Pier Head and Bulkhead lines Baltimore, MD,” with the last revised date of September 25, 1968.

Traditionally, the pier head lines could be changed by agreement between the local government, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, and the State of Maryland. The 1989 Marina Master Plan altered the pier head lines for recreational marinas to reflect changes in water use, and allow for better maneuverability. The existing lines have been continually challenged in recent years, as property owners have used creative means for defining the term “structure.” For purposes of this report, a pier head line will be considered pierced if any structure extends beyond its limits, including dolphins, permanently moored vessels, or any other floating objects that are intended to be permanent.

Recommendations In considering proposed changes to Pier Headlines, the TAC recognizes that their recommendations needed to be made on a case-by-case basis, giving consideration to conditions surrounding each property, including use of the surrounding area by recreational boats and commercial vessels.

The request for a pier head line extension, however, is similar to a variance request in land use law, and should therefore follow a formal review and decision-making process. The existing pier head line is presumed correct. The TAC has developed clear guidelines to be used in that review (See Tables 9 and 10). Even if the applicant is able to meet these guidelines the City of Baltimore may deny the application if it is in the best interest of the “public good.”

The Harbor has been divided into two districts for considering changes to the pier head line – the Industrial Shipping Zone and the Harbor Recreational Safety Zone. These districts were chosen based on the volume of boating traffic and available navigational space. The pier head safety line delineating the two areas bisects the Harbor diagonally, extending from the tip of Lighthouse Point Marina on Boston Street, to the western edge of Domino Sugar on Key Highway, 125 feet from the current shipping channel (See Map 5).

The Industrial Shipping Zone is the area of the least recreational activity on the east side of the line where most of the industrial activity is focused. This area has more space and more commercial shipping activity. Under certain conditions, puncturing the pier head lines may be acceptable in this area. Table 9 outlines the condition for piercing the pier head line in this area.

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 25

Map 4. Pier Head Lines and Inner Harbor Safety Zone

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 26

Table 9 – Guidelines for Pier Head Line Extensions in the Industrial Shipping Zone  Does the proposal directly relate to the needs or “structural” issues particular to the applicant’s industry or port shipping?  Does the enforcement of the pier headline deny the applicant rights commonly enjoyed by others at similar properties?  Does the proposal assist with access to deep water channels?  Does the proposal negatively impact safe navigation or marine infrastructure?  Is the request based on conditions or circumstances which are the result of actions by the applicant?  Does the proposal improve navigational safety?  Does the proposed extension have a negative impact on public use of waters of the United States?  Is the request for the extension caused by land or building uses on adjacent properties?

The Harbor Recreational Safety Zone is the area of greatest recreational activity to the west of this line, in what we commonly refer to as the inner harbor, where navigational space is to be strictly protected. This area hosts the greatest concentration of boating activity, two sailing schools, the majority of water taxi stops, and venues for special events. It has the least amount of space left over for navigational movement and by necessity, the least flexibility in pier headline location. Table 10 outlines the conditions that must be met in order to pierce the pier-headline in this area.

Table 10 – Guidelines for Pier Head Line Extensions in the Harbor Navigational Safety Zone Inside the Harbor Recreational Safety Zone, in order for a change in the legal limit for the pier head line to be granted, the proposal must:  Demonstrate that enforcement of the pier head line rules will deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others in similar areas.  Verify that the granting of the change will not confer on the applicant a special privilege that would be denied to other applicants.  Show that the request is not based on conditions or circumstances which are the result of actions taken by the applicant.  Show that the request does not arise from a condition relating to land or building use, either permitted or nonconforming, on a neighboring property.  Show that the application for change in the pier head line does not have a negative impact on navigational safety.  The request must directly relate to structural changes particular to the applicant’s industry or activity.

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 27 Water Quality Existing Conditions Marina and shipping operations require the water to survive; they cannot locate inland. Each benefits significantly by a cleaner, healthier Harbor. Although they are not the major source of pollution, marinas and commercial shipping operations can take responsibility for their part of the problem. If all operations contribute, the cumulative result will be a cleaner, healthier Harbor and Bay.

Although Baltimore Harbor water quality has improved since the 1970’s, it still has a long way to go. The major sources of pollution are no longer “point source” discharges from individual industries, but are instead “non-point” discharges, such as rainwater run-off from streets and parking lots, and leaks in the City’s antiquated sanitary sewer system. Also, despite years of public education, people continue to litter streets. This trash is washed into drainage systems throughout the watershed during storms, and ultimately arrives in Baltimore’s Harbor. Trash not only creates unsightly conditions but damages boat engines. It also inundates healthy wetlands, damaging nature’s natural system of cleaning itself, leading to even more pollution. Finally, floatable trash is a major source of complaints from citizens around the Harbor.

Although marinas are not the major source of pollution, they also contribute to water quality problems in a variety of ways. Marinas contribute to non-point pollution through the creation of impervious/non-porous pavement, dust from hull maintenance, solvents from engine repair, petroleum from careless fueling practices and heavy metals from antifouling paints. In addition, point sources of pollution can be released from boat sewerage systems directly into the waterway. Marina design and location can also contribute to environmental degradation by destroying sensitive habitat areas.

Similarly, commercial shipping operations contribute to the degradation of water quality through storage of bulk materials, storm water runoff from vast paved parking and storage areas, and the discharge of tainted bilge water from visiting ships.

Floating wetland islands, a new and innovative use of the water that could help achieve improved water quality are currently in the harbor as part of a Pilot Project with the National Aquarium. They are currently located in non-navigable waters in front of the World Trade Center and alongside the Aquarium, between Piers 3 and 4. Due to increasing interest in the benefits of floating wetlands, and active proposals for additional floating wetland island installations, the TAC formed a sub-committee to discuss the implications of their expanded use in the harbor and as a result, developed a series of recommendations to guide future decisions with regard to the placement and location of such installations (See Table 11).

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 28

Table 11. Guidelines for Floating Wetlands

Future proposals for floating wetland installations will be reviewed based on the following guidelines:  Shall meet all state and federal permitting requirements;  Shall have a maintenance plan or agreement on file with the MD Department of the Environment (MDE), and periodic inspections must be undertaken by the owner and reported to MDE as detailed in the maintenance plan.  Responsibility for permits and maintenance lies with the landside property owner, or their assigned agents, and transfers with the property to subsequent owners;  Shall not extend beyond property lines, the pier head or combined pier head/bulkhead line, or be located closer than 125 feet from maintained federal shipping channels. Within the MIZOD or Maritime Industrial zone, floating wetlands may not be located closer than 400 feet from the shipping channel;  Shall be tagged with identifying property information so that they can be returned should they break free of their moorings;  If Floating wetlands are located within approved marinas, an equivalent number of marina slips shall be forfeited;  In coves, inlets, between finger piers, and in other confined bodies of water, floating wetlands and related infrastructure shall not be placed in such a manner as to impede access to the main body of water;  Shall not interfere with water access of adjacent property owners;  Their placement shall not cause a hazard to, or interfere with commercial and recreational navigation;  Floating Wetland Installations shall not negatively impact the view of open water from the Promenade, or established view corridors;  Floating docks associated with floating wetlands installations shall not be considered a substitute for landside public access and Promenade requirements;  Shall not interfere with the proper operation of and accessibility to storm drains and other utilities;  Shall include only native, non-invasive plant species; and  Shall not be placed in areas where natural wetland restoration is a viable alternative.

Recommendations 1) Every industrial and recreational marina should be encouraged to become part of the State of Maryland Clean Marina Program. This voluntary program provides guidelines for Best Management Practices for marinas to adopt that control wastes and storm water run-off for water quality improvements.

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 29 2) All recreational marinas should require that people which live aboard their boats enter into a contract with a licensed boat pump-out operation, who will visit the boat and pump out the sewerage on a regular basis. This discourages illicit discharges to the Harbor. 3) All new commercial shipping operations must comply with the Baltimore City Critical Area Management Program and the updated storm water standards. Existing operations should be encouraged to enhance their facilities to comply with these measures. 4) Commercial shipping operations should limit storage of potentially polluting materials outside. If polluting materials are stored outside, operators should follow Maryland Department of the Environment Best Management Practices for control and treatment of run-off. The Baltimore City Critical Area Management Program regulations provide detailed requirements to achieve this goal. 5) The City of Baltimore should continue exploring the installation and maintenance of trash interceptors, or other technologies, at major storm water inlets or outfalls to collect trash before it enters the Harbor or utilize other methods to reduce the volume of trash that ends up in the harbor. 6) The City of Baltimore should continue to seek funds for restoring and creating wetlands in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River to capitalize on this natural estuary as an ecological resource. 7) The City of Baltimore should continue to work closely with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Maryland Port Administration to remove contaminated sediments from the Harbor to stabilize and improve water quality in the long term. 8) In addition to the “Floating Wetland” guidelines in Table 11, applicants for future floating wetlands installations will be asked to consult with the Waterfront Partnership and/or their recommended representatives, who have knowledge of what works and what doesn’t work based on the Floating Wetlands Pilot project, to ensure that we are utilizing best practices whenever possible for future installations.

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 30 Utilities and Fire Safety Existing Conditions Storm drain outfalls are located in several areas of the Harbor that are near or adjacent to the location of marinas. These not only contribute to the trash problems described above, but in some cases, the physical force of the discharge could damage the infrastructure surrounding the drain. Pollution from these pipes also causes odor problems.

Fire fighting in the Harbor can also be problematic. Boats are made of materials which are highly flammable. The great number of boats increases the possibility for a large fire in or around the Harbor. Like other City agencies, however, the Fire Department has been beset by budget cuts, which have reduced staffing and available resources to fight fires. This is especially true on the water, where fireboats take time to get to where they are needed and are extremely expensive to replace. In addition, available stand pipes which provide water access to firefighters at marinas are poorly documented, making it difficult to locate them during emergency situations.

Recommendations 1) Install trash interceptors at large storm drains to catch as part of a comprehensive approach trash before it enters the Harbor. 2) Continue working with State and City capital budget entities to fund adequate firefighting equipment for use on and around the water or explore ways that the USCG or State can fill the void in fire fighting capacity with their equipment. 3) The Fire Department should work with the City’s GIS system to map all stand pipes and should keep those maps up to date and accessible. 4) Adequate water sources should be available on piers to fight potential fires. 5) No new marina should be constructed in the path of large outfalls unless adequate technology is installed to temper the flow of water.

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 31 View Corridors The waters of the Baltimore Harbor belong to the public, and should be available to everyone. However, use of the water is often limited to those that can afford a boat, or who can pay to ride on a boat. Access to the water should not be limited to those who have access to a boat or who can afford to live in waterfront buildings. This public resource should be protected for all. There are several types of special views to and from the water that must be considered for preservation.

First, many taxpayers (business and residents) have invested in property based on having views to the water from the land. Both the location and placement of marinas and construction of buildings on piers or barges have the potential to negatively impact these adjacent property owners’ views. Although historically many neighborhoods along the waterfront were denied visual access to the water by structures, at that time the Harbor was very polluted and unattractive. Baltimore’s Harbor has been restored to a vibrant, attractive asset that people want to connect with. Therefore, it is important to respect this new condition and capitalize on the benefits of the water by protecting land based visual connections to the water to the maximum extent practical.

The second type of water view is from the water or land to the opposite shore. The protection of these views requires that the construction of new structures or buildings will enhance the view and sense of place, acting as an asset to the opposite shore and remainder of the Harbor.

Existing Conditions Baltimore has made great strides in preserving public access to the waterfront, primarily through the creation of a seven-mile waterfront promenade that connects Canton to South Baltimore. Along this promenade, the Inner Harbor Basin, Canton Waterfront Park and Broadway Pier provide dedicated locations for public access. However, some water-based developments, such as marinas, piers, buildings on piers and barges, have created a visual wall between the promenade and the water, blocking views, and therefore access.

Recognizing this problem, and the importance of preserving water views, the 1989 Marina Master Plan established view corridors. The Plan recommended organizing land-based developments and marinas so that open water views could be protected to the greatest extent practical. View corridors were established in the Plan, and identified in the official Marina Master Plan maps. (See Maps 5 & 6) Additional views from the neighborhoods were legally protected in the Key Highway, Fells Point and Canton Waterfront Urban Renewal Plans, and new ones may be proposed in TransForm Baltimore. Despite the protective view corridors, many buildings and barges have been approved around the Harbor that separate people from connecting to the water in areas not specifically identified for protection. Although the waterfront promenade is an important asset for public access, the neighborhood connection to the waterfront is also historically important, and should be given careful consideration when designing waterfront developments.

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 32 Recommendations 1) Consider view corridors when designing marinas. Include openings and vistas in marina design to provide gaps that protect public water views from the promenade. 2) Protect the existing view corridors identified in this Plan and in the approved Urban Renewal Plans and applicable Planned Unit Developments. 3) Conduct a comprehensive review of the existing view corridors to assure they are adequately defined and consider adding additional view protection areas. 4) Reduce the number of water-based ships, barges or excursion vessels that are docked or moored in areas of major public access such as the Inner Harbor and other waterfront parks. These vessels are large and block visual access to the water. They should be permanently moved outside of major view areas. 5) Include sufficient view corridors and vistas when designing land based waterfront development to assure visual contact with the water from the neighborhoods behind the development. This is important to maintain Baltimore’s historic connection to the waterfront from the neighborhoods. Also consider the views of the development from the water, preventing a “canyon” effect of large structures up against the waterfront.

Map 5. Northwest Harbor View Corridors

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 33 Map 6. Middle Branch View Corridors

Historic Vessels Baltimore’s waterfront is steeped in the history of the commercial shipping and ship-building industries. As part of the revitalization of Baltimore’s waterfront in the 1970’s the City and non- profit partners decided to highlight this history by acquiring control of a collection of historic museum vessels and creating space for visiting historic ships to dock as part of special celebrations and tourist events. These ships, which include the USS Torsk, the Chesapeake Light Ship and the USS Constellation, have been on display and open to the public in the Inner Harbor since the 1970’s.

Existing Conditions The Chesapeake Light Ship and the submarine Torsk are berthed on the west side of Pier 3 in the Inner Harbor, adjacent to the National Aquarium of Baltimore. The USS Constellation, the oldest of the three, is berthed on the west side of the Constellation pier. These ships are maintained and operated by the Living Classrooms Foundation as part of an agreement with

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 34 the City of Baltimore. In addition, the Living Classrooms Foundation manages the USS Taney, an historic Coast Guard vessel that is birthed at Pier 5. The Living Classrooms Foundation uses the vessels for tourism and educational purposes.

In addition, the Liberty Ship John W. Brown, a restored Liberty Ship built in Baltimore and used in World War II, also calls Baltimore its home. This vessel is owned, maintained and operated by Project Liberty Ship, a private, non-profit organization, completely separate from Baltimore City government. The John W. Brown is unique from the other historic vessels in the Harbor because it is completely restored and can move under its own power. It is also by far the largest of the historic museum ships in Baltimore, measuring approximately 440 feet in length. Because of its size, the John W. Brown is not berthed at the Inner Harbor, but at a pier off of South Clinton Street which is controlled by the Maryland Port Administration. This location in an industrial port area is temporary, and creates difficulties for visitors. Project Liberty Ship is seeking a permanent docking location in Baltimore that can be privately owned, will allow increased visitation and provide a long-term home for the ship in Baltimore.

Although historic museum vessels provide benefits such as a sense of history and educational opportunities, they also create several challenges. Most of these vessels cannot move under their own power and are permanently docked at specific locations. It can be costly to move the vessels for any reason, such as dock repair or other maintenance. In addition, all historic vessels are very costly to maintain in good condition. They require a sufficient revenue stream for upkeep such as painting, deck replacement and hull repair, which can be challenging.

Recommendations 1. Although historic vessels can be expensive to maintain and have other challenges, they are important to the tourism industry and provide an opportunity for “living” history at the Harbor, and should therefore, remain in Baltimore. 2. Consider designating a location in the larger harbor area for historic vessels to be berthed together. This area could function as a “floating museum”, allowing the concentration of vessels to help increase tourism activities and revenue. 3. The City of Baltimore should work in partnership with the Liberty Ship John W. Brown to find a permanent home. The John W. Brown is an important element in Baltimore’s shipbuilding history, and should remain in Baltimore. 4. Although historic “museum” vessels are important, due to the expense and other challenges associated with their operation Baltimore City should only provide space for the current four vessels (Torsk, Chesapeake Light Ship, Constellation and Taney). No additional museum vessels that cannot move under their own power should be located in the Inner Harbor area. The only exception to this would be the creation of the larger “floating museum” where historic vessels can be concentrated in one location, as discussed above.

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 35 DETAILED RECOMMENDATIONS BY LOCATION

Inner Harbor Existing Conditions The Inner Harbor, Baltimore’s number one tourist attraction and focal point for its development resurgence, presents a unique set of problems and opportunities. The National Aquarium, Maryland Science Center, Harborplace, and the redeveloped Power Plant all attract visitors to the Harbor, while the Harbor itself attracts pedestrians to the water’s edge. All of this activity adds to the vitality of the urban waterfront. . The City seeks to retain a high level of activity in this area, while ensuring overall safety. (See Figure 3)

Figure 3. Inner Harbor

Those who visit the Inner Harbor by boat are offered a variety of accommodations. Informal anchorage is provided in the area between Constellation Pier and the National Aquarium. The Dock Master provides fee-based tie-ups for transient boaters along the bulkheads of the West Wall and finger piers for a fee. The City-owned and privately-operated Inner Harbor Marina on the southern side of the Inner Harbor Basin provides 158 slips with pump-out and fuel facilities. As the number of long-term facilities around the area has increased, the Inner Harbor Marina has been adapted to serve more transient boaters.

Marine traffic and congestion are a direct result of the Inner Harbor’s success as a retail and recreation center, and he Inner Harbor can become heavily congested during peak boating periods. The number and variety of vessels, including paddleboats, water taxis, tour boats, charter boats and recreational vessels, contribute to a lively mix of activity. Recreational boat

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 36 traffic is largely composed of boats visiting from outside the Harbor; therefore, regulating slips within the City will do little to reduce the congestion. Compounding the congestion in the basin is the narrowness of the basin’s entrance. At its narrowest point, between the end of Pier 4 and the first T-head of the Inner Harbor Marina, the harbor is only 550 feet wide.

The most important measure the City can take is to preserve as much open water as possible to allow the maximum area for movement of commercial and recreational vessels.

Recommendations 1) No new or expanded marinas will be permitted in the Inner Harbor. 2) The City should continue to provide tie-ups and temporary moorings around all bulkheads not being used as permanent berthing sites to accommodate boaters during peak periods. The number of sites the City leases to private entities should be limited to maximize public docking space. 3) The designated anchorage area in front of the World Trade Center should be limited to its current configuration and permanent mooring buoys should be installed to provide better control of the anchorage. 4) No new structure or vessel should be constructed or permanently located in the basin that conflicts with the goals of the Harbor Master Plan. Such conflicts would include blocking views from the promenade, filling needed navigational space, disrupting existing marine infrastructure, creating additional maintenance problems, and increasing congestion in an already congested area. 5) The National Aquarium of Baltimore is permitted to construct a small pier adjacent to their existing pier to function as a small educational area for students. It was approved in the 2003 Maritime Master Plan under the condition that the size of the educational pier should be no wider than twenty feet, and water coverage should be minimized. The proposed pier was approved for an area where boat traffic is already restricted, and therefore, should not cause a navigational disruption or conflict. 6) Commercial vessels berthed at the Inner Harbor should be limited to those that contribute to the area’s historic character or have significant public benefits. The number of permanent berths for commercial excursion vessels should be reduced to open views and provide additional space for visiting ships and public docking.

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 37 Inner Harbor East Existing Conditions The Inner Harbor East, though geographically small, has played a significant role in the Harbor’s mixed-use development by providing a link between the Inner Harbor and Fells Point. The area begins at the northern side of the former Allied Chemical site and proceeds west to the mouth of the Jones Falls, east of Pier 6. Previously, this area was mainly home to light industrial uses, parking lots, vacant lots and abandoned wharfs. Its transformation in just the past two decades has been nothing short of remarkable. (See Figure 4)

Figure 4. Inner Harbor East

The Marriott Waterfront Hotel – the first major re-development project in this area - opened its doors in 1991, and since then, the surrounding area has welcomed new offices, restaurants, retail and residential development, adding to its vitality and forging stronger links with adjoining neighborhoods and downtown. The former Allied Chemical site, now known as Harbor Point, will eventually become another new mixed-use development, further adding to positive commercial activity in the area. The Maritime Academy, operated by the Living Classrooms Foundation, is located on City Dock between Lancaster Street and Harbor Point. The Academy’s operation is supported in part by an accessory marina with ninety-five transient slips. The Academy trains at-risk youth in ship building, woodworking, boat repair, and marina operations. All of these varied activities bring more people to the land and the waters of Baltimore harbor.

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 38 Congestion in Inner Harbor East must be minimized. Given the confined configuration of the Living Classrooms Maritime Academy, it is important that access to the main channel be preserved for all in the area. It is also essential that marina development in this area not impede navigation to and from the Inner Harbor basin.

The Navigational Safety Maritime line along that edge of the harbor restricts marina development and thereby maintains adequate passage. This line should not be changed. As an emerging neighborhood with a large and growing number of City residents, it is also important to preserve water views and public access to the waterfront.

In 2003, the TAC reviewed and approved construction of up to five finger piers at the Harbor Point development (the former Allied Chemical site), with five conditions of approval (See Appendix B). In 2011, the Harbor Point Development team proposed the addition of a 75-125 slip marina in the same location. The TAC voted to disapprove the proposed marina because the plans for both the marina and the landside development were still in the concept/planning stages and were not far enough along to include any specifics regarding exact location, layout or design. The TAC did agree, however to reconvene to reconsider this and other proposals on an annual basis.

Recommendations 1) In order to maintain maximum possible width of the access channel to the Inner Harbor, the navigational line of sight must be preserved along the shoreline of Inner Harbor East. That line extends from the bulkhead line at the former Allied Chemical site, to the end of Pier 5. 2) Breakwaters and wave attenuators needed to protect marinas in this area must be constructed within the Maritime Master Plan designated marina lines. Mooring of watercraft on the outside of these structures shall not be permitted. 3) Adequate water access must be assured in the Inner Harbor East area. Any development that takes place along the shoreline of the Inner Harbor East Renewal Area should allow for the maintenance of an 80 foot navigation channel between it and the new Allied bulkhead. This will preserve access to the facilities at the Living Classrooms Foundation marina.

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 39 4) In 2011, the TAC reviewed and approved, in concept, a bridge connecting Central Avenue to the Harbor Point peninsula. This proposal was approved with the following conditions:  The bridge will be constructed to allow navigation of small vessels underneath, to preserve limited access to the canal.  The bridge design must meet all environmental and maritime permitting requirements of our state and federal partners.  The TAC requested an opportunity to review the final bridge designs during the Planning Departments review of pending PUD amendments that include the bridge.  The requirements from 2003 concerning the impacts on the Living Classrooms Maritime Academy would also remain in effect (See Appendix B).

In 2003 a similar bridge was proposed, but was rejected by the TAC. However, the TAC understood that land use decisions and marine issues are sometimes at odds. They concluded that, should the bridge be a necessary component of redevelopment, it must not impede boat traffic nor remove available slips. Any negative impact to the Living Classrooms Maritime Academy should be mitigated at another suitable location that is approved by the TAC.

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 40 Key Highway On the opposite shore from Inner Harbor East is located the Key Highway Urban Renewal Area, just south of the Inner Harbor. The area begins at Federal Hill and proceeds south along the east side of Key Highway to the Museum of Industry. This area, formerly a shipyard, is now home to the Ritz Carlton Residences and the Harborview community, which includes high-rise condominiums, mid-rise condominiums and townhomes (See Figure 5).

Figure 5. Key Highway

The area south of Harborview was previously part of the Key Highway South Industrial Area, but with the development of Harborview, non-industrial uses have encroached upon the western portion of this area, including the Museum of Industry. In addition, the City has considered selling the Fire Department repair facility located in this area for future redevelopment. In 2011, this area was rezoned to reflect this shift, from industrial to commercial mixed-use, following the recommendations of the Key Highway South Urban Renewal Plan.

In addition, the Downtown Sailing Center, a sailing education club for adults and children, has continued to operate in the riparian rights along the Fire Department site, in addition to their docks on the Museum of Industry site.

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 41 Recommendations: 1) The northeastern shoreline of the Ritz Carlton Residences (formerly the Propeller Yard) must be kept free of marina development. This also preserves a clear field of vision for safe navigation into the Inner Harbor. 2) Breakwaters and wave attenuators needed to protect marinas in this area must be constructed within the Maritime Master Plan designated marina lines. Mooring of watercraft on the outside of these structures shall not be permitted. 3) The TAC approved an application by the Downtown Sailing Center (DSC) to replace and reconfigure their marina docks at the City’s Fire Maintenance facility at 1407 Key Highway. The Downtown Sailing Center will be permitted to build up to 26 slips at this location, which they have leased from the City for a period of 25 years. These slips are in addition to their marina located at the Baltimore Museum of Industry, which was previously approved for up to 20 slips. 4) The TAC approved (with conditions) the installation of floating wetlands in the southern portion of the Harborview Marina site, where no slips or docks are currently located. The Harborview Marina had been previously approved for up to 350 slips and currently has 278 slips.

The installation of the Harborview floating wetlands project would result in the elimination of the rights to the remaining 72 slips. In addition, the Harborview Floating Wetland Islands must meet all of the approved harbor-wide guidelines for floating wetlands installations (See Table 11, page 32).

Map 7. Key Highway Marinas and Harborview Floating Wetland Installation Area

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 42 Key Highway Industrial Area Existing Conditions The Key Highway Industrial Area begins just south of the Museum of Industry, running south and east along the shoreline to Tide Point. In the 1989 Marina Master Plan, this area was designated for industrial protection. The Industrial Protection designation was meant to protect this area from land speculation and encroachment by non-industrial uses. The site currently occupied by General Ship repair was rezoned as part of the Key Highway South Urban Renewal Plan referenced above, but remains for maritime purposes in the Industrial designation because of its current use. General Ship Repair has continued to invest in expansion and improvements to their facility, indicating a commitment to staying in operation for at least the near future.

Beyond General Ship repair are the Egan Marine Services and former Tidewater Yacht Services, which is no longer in operation after having expanded their industrial marina at the time of the 2003 Maritime Master Plan update. Domino Sugar, which is located to their south, purchased Tidewater Marine’s facility for the long-term future expansion of their own operations (See Figure 6).

Figure 6. Key Highway Industrial Area

The redeveloped Tide Point complex is now home to the world headquarters of Under Armor and is under the control of the Tide Point Planned Unit Development, allowing primarily for office uses, with accessory retail. The Tide Point facility includes a public promenade, a water taxi stop as well as a private pier and kayak docking facility.

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 43 Recommendations 1. In this area, from General Ship Repair east, the Industrial Protection Zone shall remain intact. 2. In 2011, Egan Marine proposed a pier extension at their facility in order to attract industrial users to the site. Although the land use supported such a move, the TAC had to disapprove this amendment because it would extend the pier beyond both the pier head line and the property line demarcating the limit of riparian rights. This proposal was also opposed by the adjoining property owners because an extended pier could have interfered with access and navigability into and out of their existing piers and dry- docks.

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 44 Fells Point Existing Conditions Fells Point is bounded by the former Allied Chemical site on the west and Chester Street on the east. Land side uses in Fells Point are predominately a mix of residential and commercial. Previously home to small industrial pockets, this area is being redeveloped in keeping with the current surrounding commercial and residential character of the area (See Figure 7).

Fells Point is home to seven marinas with a total of 749 slips. An additional 202 are permitted, bringing the potential total to 951 slips. The City-owned Recreation Pier, located in the heart of this area, was historically used by tugs and barges under lease agreements with the City, but is in need of extensive repair. Following an RFP process, the pier was sold to a private developer for a future development of a boutique hotel. In 2011, the TAC reviewed and disapproved a proposal from the new owners to construct a 50 slip recreational marina on the east side of the pier. The TAC could not approve the marina because, the riparian rights to the waters adjacent to the pier were not transferred from the City to the private development team; a marina in this location would block views from the Ann Street view corridor; and as proposed, would interfere with City owned docking along the Ann Street pier.

Figure 7. Fells Point

The Fells Point Urban Renewal Plan establishes clear guidelines for development that preserve existing public access corridors and provide for new ones. Safety and navigation concerns in Fells Point include the need for access to and from Chester Cove (located near the intersection of Aliceanna and Boston Streets) and prescribed setbacks distances from the turning basins used by commercial shipping. Access to Chester Cove is limited due to the construction of marinas on both sides of the inlet. In addition, a 300-foot channel was established in the first Marina Master Plan to serve barges used by Arundel Corporation for its concrete batching operation; however, the operation no longer exists, and the channel should remain to preserve

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 45 the free flow of boat traffic to and from the existing and proposed marinas. Tie-ups outside of breakwaters and wave attenuators tend to narrow this channel.

Other safety and navigation concerns include the need for impediment-free access to essential public safety services in this area of the Harbor, as well as the need to maintain the turning basin in the waters between Recreation Pier and the Tide Point and Domino Sugar facilities for the continued safe operation of shipping and large vessel movements in the Harbor (this area also functions as an important “clear zone” for fireworks displays.)

Recommendations 1) Providing public access corridors to the water is essential to preserving Fells Point’s unique waterfront character. Access and view corridors opened up by the last Marina Master Plan Revision and formalized in the Fells Point Urban Renewal Plan should be preserved. 2) Water-side safety in the area is also important. The 200-foot setback from the channel established in the last Plan revision should be preserved. This will protect the commercial shipping channel and turning basin off Fells Point. 3) The TAC reviewed and approved a proposal to construct a 52-slip recreational marina at the Union Wharf development at 901-915 S. Wolfe Street. This approval was given under the conditions that the proposed slips on the southeast edge of the property may not conflict with the approved marina at the property to the South (Swann’s Wharf). In order to accomplish this, the distance from the edge of the piers at Union Wharf’s property line must be a minimum of 1.5 times the length of the largest vessel to use these slips. A second condition requires that the parking requirements for the marina be met on site.

Map 8: Fells Point Area View Corridors

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 46 Canton Existing Conditions Canton extends from Chester Street to the intersection of Clinton and Boston Streets. Canton has been transformed into one of the city’s more successful mixed-use commercial and residential neighborhoods. The Canton Waterfront Park provides an important public waterfront access area as well as a land-side buffer between this area and the Canton Industrial Area that starts on Clinton Street. The park also accommodates the relocated facilities of the Baltimore City Police Marine Unit, City fireboats and trash skimmers.

The redeveloped Canton shoreline currently has seven private marinas with a collective total of 1,186 marina slips. The largest of these is the Anchorage marina with 576 slips. All of the marinas that were proposed in the 1989 Plan have either been constructed or are permitted for development. An additional 200 slips were approved as part of the Canton Crossing development in the 2003 Maritime Master Plan update. With its 1,513 permitted slips, Canton hosts the largest concentration of recreational boat slips of any area in the City.

A key issue in Canton is the proximity of the Lighthouse Point and Canton Crossing recreational marinas to the industrial uses along Clinton Street. The industrial area piers receive ships and barges loading and unloading oil and other materials. Because of the physical proximity of the industrial facilities to the recreational facilities, their use of the open water overlaps. New proposals in this area must be given serious consideration to maximize navigational safety, and minimize conflicts between shipping and recreation uses.

Views from the Canton area shoreline have been greatly obscured by the large number of slips already constructed. Maintaining open water views from public access points along the promenade is a major concern in this area and has been addressed in the Canton Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan. The Canton Waterfront Park is an important public access area with views across the water to Ft. McHenry National Monument. It is especially important to protect the views from this area (See Figure 8.)

Figure 8. Canton

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 47

Recommendations 1) Preserve the industrial area from south of Canton Crossing to the Seagirt Marine Terminal. 2) In addition to the view corridors established in the Canton Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan, open water view protection areas must be preserved at Canton Point and the Canton Waterfront Park (See Figure 8). 3) In 2003, the TAC reviewed and approved a proposal by Canton Crossing to construct a 200-slip recreational marina or a cruise ship terminal with a 45-slip recreational marina. With the development of a cruise ship terminal at South Locust Point, this should no longer be considered an option. The 2003 Plan stated that if a different location is chosen for the cruise ship terminal, then the 200-slip marina may be built at this location. The pier headline may not be extended for construction of the recreational marina. However, the following constraints must be incorporated:  The design of this marina may not conflict with the existing boat ramp at the Canton Waterfront Park. The marina must provide a minimum 100 foot clearance from the boat launch area to the nearest marina slip.  The proposed marina design conflicts with the large storm drain outfall from Clinton Street. This storm drain carries significant volumes of flow during storm events, and will damage boats at the marina without special design considerations. The marina design must be revised to show that the facility will not interfere with the flow of storm water, and that the storm water will not damage the marina. This may require that the overall number of marina slips constructed be less than the number approved by this Master Plan.  The location of the proposed 45 slip marina in relation to the storm drain outfall from Clinton Street has potential to create a sedimentation and trash problem at the marina. The flow of water from the storm drain may interact with the marina structure, creating an increase in sedimentation. In addition, the marina slips will likely trap trash from the outfall. The proposed marina design must take these issues into account.  If the proposed marina displaces the existing facilities for the Department of Public Works and Marine Police, those facilities must be accommodated by the developer elsewhere. The new location must be approved by the City and the State Department of Natural Resources before construction of the new facility will be permitted. If the Department of Public Works and Marina Police remain, their water access easement must remain. 4) A 950-foot clear area must be maintained between the end of the pier headline at Canton Cove and the nearest marina structure (except for existing slips in front of

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 48 Tindeco and Canton Cove) to allow room for vessels using the Clinton Street industrial facility to maneuver and room for recreational vessels to access the marina slips and public boat launch. Adequate wave attenuators must also be installed as part of any addition to the existing marinas to protect small crafts in the marina. 5) In 2003, the Lighthouse Point Marina proposed to move their industrial repair operations and the dry storage marina from their facility to 1800 S. Clinton Street. The TAC had great concerns about this proposal because initially it would have displaced an active deep water shipping operation and created potential conflicts between recreational boaters and ship operators. The TAC approved the proposal after the applicant agreed to maintain the deep water access at the site, while moving the boat repair and dry storage to one side. They also committed to use trained, licensed personnel to deliver the boats back and forth from the boatel to Lighthouse Point. The public will not be allowed to pick up or drop off their boats at the site. Based on these proposed changes, the TAC approved the 160-unit dry storage marina on Clinton Street with the following conditions:  The Boatel and the proposed licensing of operators must be built into the zoning approval of the conditional use. The owner must meet the conditions of the conditional use permit or he will be in violation of zoning, and will be subject to zoning enforcement measures.  Only trained, licensed personnel may deliver the boats to Lighthouse Point. The general public may not pick up their boats at the Clinton Street facility.  The owner must keep records of the trained personnel working each day that can be monitored by the City to ensure that appropriate personnel are delivering the boats.  This will create a liability issue for surrounding shipping operations. The Zoning Code must make it clear that the burden for making the recreational boats at the boatel/repair facility safe from wave action and prop wash is the responsibility of the applicant, not the commercial shipping operators.  A wave attenuator must be constructed on the north side of the commercial pier to protect recreational boats at the facility. Another wave attenuator may be required on the south side should a commercial shipping operation begin operation nearby. Plans for these facilities must meet the specifications of the USACE, MDE and the City of Baltimore, and must be certified by a licensed engineer.  Parking for the boated must be provided, in accordance with zoning, on the site where the public is to pick-up boats (currently at Lighthouse Point).

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 49 South Locust Point/ Port Covington Existing Conditions The Locust Point peninsula separates the Northwest Branch from the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and extends from Hanover Street to Fort McHenry. The Locust Point waterfront is characterized by heavy industrial uses which are served by a considerable amount of commercial shipping. The Baltimore Yacht Basin is the only existing recreational marina on the South Locust Point peninsula. The marina, which hosts 197 slips, is adjacent to the south shore of the Locust Point peninsula just east of the Hanover Street Bridge. Ferry Bar marina is approved for 34 slips, but none have been constructed.

South Locust Point is now home to the Baltimore Cruise Ship Terminal, operated by the Maryland Port Administration. The terminal operates year-round and is called on by two major lines that offer cruises to the Bahamas, Bermuda, the Caribbean, and New England/Canada. In addition, two additional lines visit Baltimore as port calls throughout the year. Cruising from the Port of Baltimore has been highly successful. In 2011, 251,889 people sailed on 105 cruises, exceeding the previous record of 210,549 on 90 cruises set in 2010.

The former Port Covington Business Park was redeveloped prior to 2003, through the use of a Planned Unit Development, as a retail center with a Walmart, and a now vacant Sam’s Club. Several large, deep-water piers still exist at this site, with room for an additional pier if constructed. In 2003, an application was made by Tidewater Yacht Services for a 400 slip recreational marina and boat repair facility. The TAC approved this application with conditions, but as of 2011, none have been built (see recommendations below).

Recommendations 1) The TAC approved the construction of a 400 – slip recreational marina at Port Covington with the following conditions:  No recreational boat slips may be constructed on the NE side of the old Pier 4 to protect ships docking in this location.  Slips must be constructed a minimum of 300 feet distance from the NE side of the old “Grain Pier”.  Wave attenuator must be constructed on the northeast and southeast side of the marina to protect recreational vessels form prop wash caused by ships in the area.  Marina design must include sufficient clearance for docking of military “ready ships” at site.  Parking must be provided.  A boatel is also permitted at this site as approved in the 1989 Marina Master Plan. As recommended in that plan, the total number of slips at the site should not exceed the total number approved at the recreational marina. In this case four hundred is the total number of wet and dry slips permitted.

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 50 Middle Branch Existing Conditions The Middle Branch portion of the study area includes the shoreline of the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River, west of the Hanover Street Bridge, as well as the shoreline between the bridge and Harbor Hospital Center. This area encompasses various uses from industrial to parks and public open spaces.

Middle Branch Park is a system of public open spaces along the shore including Waterview East and West, Westport ball field, and Swann Park (Reedbird and Lookout Parks are outside of the area). Two public recreational boat ramps are located in the Korean War Memorial Park. The Water Resources Center/Rowing Facility provides facilities for crewing and sculling, as well as water quality and wildlife study. Middle Branch Marina, a privately-owned marina west of the Water Resources Center, has 340 in-water slips. The National Aquarium is working to relocate their animal care center to a waterfront site in front of the City’s Central Garage, on the north side of the river. This redevelopment will include new wetlands and improved public access, complementing the Water Resources Center on the opposite shore. In addition, the Gwynns Falls Trail, a hiker/biker trail system extending fourteen miles from Gwynns Falls Leakin Park in west Baltimore, connects over thirty neighborhoods and the Inner Harbor directly to the Middle Branch Park system.

Figure 9. Middle Branch

The Middle Branch area is ecologically sensitive and provides an excellent opportunity for habitat restoration and passive public recreation; it is important for the City to preserve and enhance this character. The waters of the Middle Branch are shallow, and consequently, motorized boating activity must be minimized in this area to provide favorable conditions for habitat enhancement as promoted by the Critical Area Management Program (See Figure 9).

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 51

Recommendations 1) This area should be more actively utilized for passive boating such as canoeing, kayaking and sculling. Funds should be invested to install trash interceptors, restore wetlands and clean contaminated sediments. This will also protect the public investment that created the Water Resources and Rowing Center. 2) New or expanded recreational marinas shall be prohibited in this area unless functioning solely for boating education purposes.

Map 9. Middle Branch Open Space & Recreation Map (from Middle Branch Master Plan)

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 52 Fairfield Existing Conditions The Fairfield area includes the shoreline south of Reedbird Park that runs east and south to the Patapsco Waste Water Treatment Plant. From the treatment plant, the shoreline continues along the northern shore of Curtis Bay to the City boundary at I-695. The Fairfield shoreline is dominated by heavy industrial uses with one exception.

The Masonville Cove, which lies between the Arundel Corporation and the Maryland Port Administration’s expansion area on the Masonville peninsula, is a unique ecological resource. It functions as an historic waterfowl staging area, harboring thousands of shorebirds during the spring and fall migration, and is one of the largest waterfowl staging areas in the StateThe fact that it is located within City boundaries, just three miles from downtown Baltimore, makes this area truly unique, and offers excellent opportunities for environmental education programming and eco-tourism. The Maryland Port Administration once proposed filling this area for marine terminal uses, but has since pledged support to preserve this area, and is using it for ecological restoration as mitigation for other developments (See Figure 10).

Figure 10. Fairfield/Masonville Cove

Recommendations 1) Fairfield is ideal for industrial uses and shipping activity. Industrial uses should be directed to and protected in this area. 2) In 2003, the TAC reviewed and approved a proposal to extend the pier headline at the Port Liberty and Atlantic Terminal Facilities, and to remove the previously-approved boatel facility at Port Liberty (See Appendix B for more detail). 3) Preserve and enhance the Masonville Cove area as a waterfowl staging area and habitat protection area. Improve the shoreline and restore wetlands here. 4) Recreational marinas shall be prohibited in this area because of its ecological importance and the large concentration of heavy industrial and shipping activity.

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 53 Hawkins Point Existing Conditions Hawkins Point begins on the eastern shore of Curtis Creek and the City boundary and proceeds along the shoreline eastward to Fort Armistead Park and the City boundary. The majority of the Hawkins Point shoreline is used for heavy industry.

Fort Armistead Park is located on the south side of the Key Bridge. Acquired by the City in 1927, the 46-acre park provides recreation opportunities to residents in the southern portions of Baltimore City and Baltimore and Anne Arundel Counties. The park offers a fishing pier and a free boat launch for public use. No marinas exist or are proposed on the Hawkins Point peninsula (See Figure 11).

Figure 11. Hawkins Point

Recommendations 1) Recreational marinas should be prohibited in this area. 2) In 2011, the TAC reviewed and approved a plan for the Fairfield Alternative Energy Park Barge Terminal. This plan is part of the redevelopment of a former brownfield site into an eco-industrial park, and will be centered around a new Energy Answers alternative energy plant. This project was approved as presented (See Appendix A for more detail).

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 54 APPENDIX A.

2011 MARITIME MASTER PLAN PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

RECREATION PIER MARINA PROPOSAL

Brief Statement of Proposal or Request: Proposal to add a 50 slip recreational marina in the riparian parcel due east of the Recreation Pier.

Person/Organization making this request or suggestion: Jonathan Flesher, on behalf of Recreation Pier Development, LLC

Summary of Proposal or Request: The development team requests the addition of a recreational marina of approximately 50 slips to the east of the Recreation Pier in the location shown on the attached satellite photo.

View Corridors (represented by arrows)

The development team is currently in negotiation with the City of Baltimore regarding riparian rights. The Department of Public Works currently leases the west side of the Ann Street Pier and any marina development along the pier should not interfere with their continued use and vessel access to the bulkhead along Ann Street. In addition, the Fells Point Waterfront URP and the 2003 MMP provide for a view corridor in this area facing south from Thames Street (see below).

2003 Master Plan References: View Corridors, Table 4 – Guidelines for New Marina Development

Decision: Disapproval. The Recreation Pier Marina was disapproved because the proposed location is beyond the current property lines. When or if the development team acquires riparian rights, the TAC has committed to reconsider the proposal.

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 55 DOWNTOWN SAILING CENTER DOCK RECONFIGURATION PROPOSAL

Brief Statement of Proposal or Request: A proposal to increase the number of slips at the Downtown Sailing Center and reconfigure the piers and docks at 1407 Key Highway. A maximum of 26 slips is being requested, in addition to the existing slips at 1415 Key Highway.

Person/Organization making this request or suggestion: Irene Van Sant, on behalf of the City and the Lessee, the Downtown Sailing Center.

Summary of Proposal or Request: With the rezoning of the land along this portion of Key Highway from M-2 to B-2-2 (per Key Highway South Urban Renewal Plan), the Baltimore Development Corporation, on behalf of the Downtown Sailing Center is proposing to add 26 slips and allow for the replacement and reconfiguration of the docks and piers in the riparian rights for 1407 Key Highway (known as the Fire Maintenance Site). These riparian rights have been leased to the Downtown Sailing Center for a period of 25 years and .869 acres of submerged land extending to the combined pier head/bulkhead line.

2003 Master Plan References: Key Highway Industrial Area Recommendations

Decision: Approved as Proposed. The TAC also approved a temporary field of up to 30 moorings within the same footprint while funds for dock replacement are being secured (per above drawing).

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 56 CENTRAL AVENUE BRIDGE PROPOSAL

Type of Request or Suggestion: Construction of a Central Avenue Bridge over the canal to the Harbor Point Development Site

Brief Statement of Proposal or Request: The development team asked for a conceptual approval of a vehicular and pedestrian bridge from the foot of Central Avenue to the development site, formerly known as Allied Chemical, now known as the Harbor Point Planned Unit Development. The bridge is not shown on the Planned Unit Development master plan as approved by the Planning Commission, and could therefore further public hearings.

Person/Organization making this request or suggestion: Jonathan Flesher, on behalf of Harbor Point Development, LLC

Summary of Proposal or Request: Through discussions with City agencies, including DOT, it was determined that the Central Avenue bridge is necessary and the appropriate bridge location from a traffic/access perspective. It would minimize the impact on the Living Classrooms’ Marina and sailing center, with replacement of any lost slips and the sailing center being accommodated elsewhere (currently in private negotiations). The Drawing shows the proposed conceptual alignment.

2003 Master Plan References: Inner Harbor East/Key Highway Recommendations

Decision: Approval, with conditions. The TAC approved the concept of the Central Avenue Bridge, provided final design meets all state and federal requirements and current Maritime Master Plan guidelines, including previous conditions regarding the Living Classrooms Foundation Marina. The TAC also requested to review final design plans prior to Planning Commission approval.

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 57 HARBOR POINT MARINA PROPOSAL

Brief Statement of Proposal or Request: A proposal to add a marina of up to 120 slips in the riparian parcel on the south eastern portion of the Harbor Point peninsula.

Person/Organization making this request or suggestion: Jonathan Flesher, on behalf of Harbor Point Development LLC

Summary of Proposal or Request: As an alternative to the 5 finger piers currently approved, the proposal is the addition of approximately 75 marina slips east of the proposed transit piers. Alternatively, if the piers are deemed unnecessary, we propose having a total of 120 slips. Slips lost by Living Classroom, due to the Central Avenue bridge proposal could be moved to this location.

Option 1:

Option 2:

2003 Master Plan References: Table 4 – Guidelines for New Marina Development Inner Harbor East/Key Highway Recommendations

Decision: Disapproval. The TAC disapproved the Harbor Point Marina because the details of the proposed marina were not yet clear. The TAC has committed to reconsider the proposal in the future when plans become more definitive.

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 58 ENTERTAINMENT CRUISES PROPOSAL FOR EXPANDED DOCKING SPACE

Type of Request or Suggestion: MAP Amendment/Text Amendment

Brief Statement of Proposal or Request: Request to move both large vessels and the smaller “sea dog” vessels to the west wall of the Inner Harbor, OR complete the necessary structural improvements to the finger piers with the addition of water, sewage and electric service.

Person/Organization making this request or suggestion: Dan Leaman, on behalf of Entertainment Cruises.

Summary of Proposal or Request: Entertainment Cruises currently has wharfage agreements with the City of Baltimore for a portion of the west wall and the northernmost finger pier (160 Feet). The proposal requested the relocation of 160 feet of dock space usage from the finger pier to the west wall, north of their current docking space.

As an alternative, they requested structural improvements to the wooden finger piers, which are not equipped for permanent dockage of large vessels, as well as the addition of electric, sewage and water service, which currently are available only on the wall.

2003 Master Plan References: Inner Harbor Recommendations Figure 1 – Inner Harbor Basin & Entrance.

Decision: Disapproval. The TAC voted to disapprove this proposal because of the City/BDC’s opposition. BDC and the Department of Transportation agreed to work with them on improvements to the Finger Piers.

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 59 FAIRFIELD RENEWABLE AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY ECO-INDUSTRIAL PARK BARGE TERMINAL PROPOSAL

Brief Statement of Proposal or Request: A proposal to construct a barge terminal at 1701 E. Patapsco Ave. to serve the Eco-Industrial Park and power plant.

Person/Organization making this request or suggestion: Kurt Kramer, on behalf of Energy Answers.

Summary of Proposal or Request: Construction of a loading pier, dolphins and land based support structures as generally described on the attached document titled, The Fairfield Renewable and Alternate Energy Power Plant, Overall Site and Barge Terminal Plans, dated 09/21/2011, for the delivery of power plant fuel and exportation of plant bi products as well as potential use by other Eco- Industrial Park satellite industries for water based delivery and exportation of supplies and products associated with their manufacturing processes.

2003 Master Plan References: Commercial Shipping Recommendations Hawkins Point Recommendations

Decision: Approval as proposed. The Planning Commission added a recommendation that the TAC invite a representative from CSX Coal Pier to join the Advisory Committee. They also recommended that when the project begins to move forward, the TAC and the applicant work with CSX to minimize any negative impacts on the adjacent coal pier operations and maximizes safety.

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 60 PROPOSAL TO EXTEND THE PIER AT 1000 KEY HIGHWAY

Brief Statement of Proposal or Request: A proposal to replace and extend the existing pier from 240 feet to 400 feet in order to make the property more marketable for industrial use.

Person/Organization making this request or suggestion: John Roe, Chesapeake Realty, on behalf of Egan Boiler Service Co. (James Egan).

Summary of Proposal or Request: The applicant requested permission to extend the pier from 240 feet (existing) to 400 feet in order to accommodate a maritime industrial use. This would extend the pier beyond the property line and beyond the limits of the pier head/bulkhead line.

2003 Master Plan References: Boating, Traffic Volume and Navigational Safety Recommendations Pier Head Line Recommendations Table 9 – Guidelines for Industrial Shipping Zone Table 10 – Guidelines for Pier Head Line Extension within the Navigational Safety Zone

Decision: Disapproval. The TAC voted to disapprove the pier extension at 1000 Key Highway because it would pierce the combined pier head/bulkhead line and extend beyond the property line. Objections were also received from adjacent property owners.

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 61 PROPOSAL FOR SAFETY AND SIGNAGE IMPROVEMENTS

Brief Statement of Proposal or Request: Due to the potential conflicts between commercial vessels and fast moving recreational or excursion vessel, and sailboats which are not powered by motors, the following safety improvements were requested: 1. To reduce potential for injuries, boat and/or marina damages, strictly enforce the No Wake Zones and/or 6 kph speed limits from west shore of the Inner Harbor to the southern tip of the Fort McHenry entranceway channel. 2. Expand education and outreach efforts for boating rules of the road throughout local marinas and on websites. 3. Better define areas permissible for anchorage, 4. Install Navigational Light closer to Lazaretto Point so that the light is not blocked by docked ships, 5. Install new, larger and illuminated no wake zone/6 mph max” sign at a more southern point along the Fort McHenry Seawall.

Person/Organization making this request or suggestion: David Wallace and Michael Brassert, Private Citizens, Recreational Sailors

Summary of Proposal or Request: Improve safety and prevent conflicts between vessels by implementing the above recommendations.

2003 Master Plan References: Boating, Traffic Volume and Navigational Safety Recommendations Commercial Shipping Recommendations

Decision: The TAC voted to disapprove these recommendations because they restate existing policy and could be resolved through improved harbor management and enforcement, as called for in the existing Maritime Master Plan. In addition, Lazaretto Light is on private property and no longer intended or appropriate for navigational purposes.

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 62 PROPOSAL: Harborview Floating Wetlands

Brief Statement of Proposal or Request: The Baltimore Marine Center requested a MMP amendment to allow them to build a large installation of floating wetlands in a currently unutilized portion of their marina.

Person/Organization making this request or suggestion: Phil Lee, on behalf of Baltimore Marine Center and Dr. Selvin Passen, MD.

Summary of Proposal or Request: The applicants proposed the installation of floating wetlands in the southern portion of their marina site (see drawing), where no slips or docks are currently located. The current master plan allows for a total of 350 slips at the Harborview Marina. The marina, according to their website, currently has 278 slips, which would mean the floating wetlands would be taking the place of a total of 72 slips.

2003 Master Plan References: Table 3. Number of Boat Slips in Harbor Recreational Marinas 2001

Decision: The TAC voted to approve the concept of the Harborview Floating Wetlands project, provided they meet all newly adopted guidelines for future Floating Wetlands Installations (see page 30, Table 11).

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 63 APPENDIX B.

2003 MARITIME MASTER PLAN PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

Fourteen amendments were submitted for approval in the 2002 update of the Baltimore Harbor Master Plan. These amendments ranged from new proposals for recreational marinas to requests for approval for seaplane tours, landing in the Harbor. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) recognized that it was important to review each proposal according to its unique circumstances, but also to maintain a level of consistency across all applications. To assure each application was reviewed according to the same overarching criteria, a Proposal Justification Rating Form was developed with a scoring component. After extensive discussion, each proposal was ranked according to this rating system. The decision to approve or deny the application was then determined based on all of these components. The Justification Rating Form is attached as part of this Appendix.

Each proposed amendment is discussed below. The numbers of the amendment correspond to the numbers on the map in this appendix.

1) PORT LIBERTY/ATLANTIC TERMINAL PROPOSAL: Breach the pier headline for pier extension to accommodate larger ships. VOTE: Approve REASON: This pier headline breach meets the criteria contained in section H. of the Master Plan. The proposal directly relates to the historic industrial uses at the site. The proposal does not negatively impact marine infrastructure or navigational safety and does not have a negative impact on public use of navigable waters.

2) TIDE POINT MARINA PROPOSAL: Create twelve-slip marina at Tide Point office complex. VOTE: Deny/Reconsider pending zoning change. If the update of Baltimore’s Comprehensive Plan recommends that the zoning should be changed at this site, the applicant may re-apply for an amendment to this Plan. REASON FOR DENIAL: Recreational marina’s are not permitted in the approved Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the site. If the owner amends the PUD the Technical Advisory Committee can review the application. The TAC cannot approve a recreational marina that is not legally permitted by zoning. If the PUD is amended to permit a twelve slip marina, the TAC will reconsider the application.

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 64 3) TIDEWATER MARINA PROPOSAL: Convert an industrial marina to an industrial/recreational marina and enlarge the marina. VOTE: Deny recreational marina, approve industrial marina. If the update of Baltimore’s Comprehensive Plan recommends that the zoning should be changed at this site, the applicant may re-apply for an amendment to this Plan. REASON: The existing operation is an industrial marina on land that is zoned for industrial uses. Recreational Marinas are not permitted on industrially zoned land. The TAC cannot approve a use that is not legally permitted in the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the marina is surrounded on two sides by industrial operations, and therefore is not compatible for a recreational marina.

4) LIBERTY SHIP JOHN BROWN PIER HEADLINE PIERCING PROPOSAL: The organization Project Liberty Ship requested permission to build a thirty foot by 497 foot pier in a location where the existing pier headline is 282 feet from the landward edge of the property. This would extend the pier 215 feet into public waters and navigational space.

VOTE: Deny REASON: The area proposed for the pier headline extension is within the Navigational Safety Zone of the Harbor, where the TAC determined that any loss of navigational space should be strongly discouraged. The proposed change did not meet the criteria for allowing changes to the pier headline in this zone. For a list of the criteria, see section H. The Technical Advisory Committee is supportive of Project Liberty Ship, and has agreed to work with them and the Mayor’s Office to find an alternate location within the City for the ship.

5) DOWNTOWN SAILING CENTER MARINA PROPOSAL: Legalize a pre-existing non-permitted forty slip marina in front of the Museum of Industry used by the Downtown Sailing Club; enlarge marina to expand onto property west of the facility with twenty slips. VOTE: Approve the existing marina, but not the expansion, with the condition that the property owner obtain appropriate zoning changes to legally accommodate use. In addition, the zoning changes must be supported in the update of Baltimore’s Comprehensive Plan. REASON: The marina exists on land that is zoned industrial. Recreational Marinas are not permitted on industrial zoned land. The TAC recommended that the Downtown Sailing Center work with the Museum of Industry to develop a PUD for the site to correct the situation.

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 65 6) RITZ CARLTON MARINA PROPOSAL: Construct a thirteen-slip marina on the southeast side of the Ritz Carlton hotel PUD.

VOTE: Approve. REASON: The proposal met all of the criteria for new recreational marinas as set forth in section D of this Plan.

7) WORLD TRADE CENTER PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PROPOSAL: Construct a large pedestrian bridge in front of the Baltimore World Trade Center into the Harbor to provide protection from terrorism to WTC building. VOTE: Deny REASON: The Bridge proposal directly conflicts with the recommendations contained in this Master Plan, including: will severely reduce navigational space in a constricted, heavily trafficked area; block water views; ‘fill’ open water; and remove existing public mooring space.

8) NATIONAL AQUARIUM IN BALTIMORE PROPOSAL A: Construct 40 foot by 10 foot wide pier that would shift the historic ships the Torsk and the Chesapeake Light Ship away from promenade wall to create space for emergency vehicles during the expansion construction of the Aquarium.

VOTE: Deny REASON FOR DENIAL: This proposal would further reduce navigational space in the Inner Harbor which is against the recommendations of the Plan.

PROPOSAL B: Construct a small access pier for educational instruction at the water. VOTE: Approve REASON FOR APPROVAL: This small pier is acceptable because it is in and a non-navigable area of the harbor behind a bridge structure and is small enough that it does not create a ‘fill’ area or block views.

9) HARBOR POINT BRIDGE PROPOSAL: Construct a bridge across the water from the end of President Street to the Harbor Point development site (formerly the Allied Chemical site). VOTE: Deny

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 66 REASON: This proposal presents unique challenges because in involves designs for land- based safety that conflict with water-based infrastructure and safety. In this case, the water-based conflicts include removal of portions of one recreational marina and blockage of access for another. The impact on boating navigation is in conflict with the 1989 Plan, and the proposed bridge creates new safety hazards for boating in the Harbor. Any proposed bridge at this site would have to address these issues before it could be acceptable to the TAC.

10) HARBOR POINT PIERS PROPOSAL: Construct five piers varying in length from 90 feet to approximately 212 feet. VOTE: Approve with conditions REASON: The project is compatible with surrounding marine infrastructure and land use, and will not create nautical safety hazards. The finger piers offer a fresh opportunity for docking visiting ships, and commercial craft outside of the Inner Harbor Basin, which is at times too congested. However, development of the piers will create potential conflicts with existing pyrotechnic special events such as fireworks, and is not suitable for a recreational marina. The TAC set conditions on the use of the piers to assure these safety concerns are met. These conditions should be incorporated into any PUD or changes in the Urban Renewal Plan amendments for the area. The conditions are as follows:  Piers may not be used for long term leasing space for recreational vessels or as a recreational marina. Only short term public docking only is permitted.  All boats/vessels must vacate the piers for special events that involve fireworks or pyrotechnics. No vessels or people may occupy the piers during fireworks or pyrotechnic special event displays for safety reasons. If buildings are approved for construction on piers at the Harbor Point site, the Planning Commission has the option of reconsidering this condition in relation to the new development.  Pier design may not obstruct or impede access to the Living Classrooms Foundation Marine Railway to the east of the site.  The developer may not extend the piers beyond the pier-head-bulkhead line.

11) UNION WHARF RECREATIONAL MARINA PROPOSAL: Construct a 52 slip recreational marina as part of the Union Wharf mixed-use development in Fells Point.

VOTE: Approve REASON: This marina meets the guidelines for creation of new recreational marinas in section D of the Plan. It also met the criteria found in the Rating form.

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 67 12) MARINE AIR ADVENTURES PROPOSAL: Create a seaplane tourism operation from the Harbor that uses the Harbor Channel for take-off and landing.

VOTE: Deny REASON: The use is not compatible with surrounding marine infrastructure, and creates a potential safety hazard for commercial and recreational boating during its take-off and landing. When the plane takes off and lands, it must reach speeds of sixty m.p.h., which greatly exceeds the six knot speed limit enforced in this area for safety. The proposal is not consistent with the goals of the 1989 Plan due to conflicts with commercial shipping operations. The tourism nature of the operation is not compatible with industrial shipping, and the noise from the aircraft would have a negative impact on homes in the vicinity of the air tour.

13) CANTON CROSSING MARINA PROPOSAL A: Construct a 200-slip marina in front of the proposed Canton Crossing Planned Unit Development on Clinton Street.

VOTE: Approve with conditions. REASON: The marina is permitted by zoning in the approved Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the site. The marina meets guidelines for recreational marinas presented in the Plan (see page19) and the criteria listed in the Project Justification rating. To assure that the proposed marina is designed to meet the TAC’s criteria, the following conditions were placed on the design:  The developer must meet marina parking requirements on-site.  Must design the marina to address storm water flow issues at the storm drain at the corner of Boston and Clinton Streets.  Must accommodate the needs of the Marine Police and DPW boats at another suitable site if the marina design displaces these facilities.

PROPOSAL B: Construct a cruise ship terminal with a forty-five slip marina as part of the Canton Crossing PUD.

VOTE: Approve marina with conditions, support concept of cruise ship terminal. REASON: The cruise ship terminal works well at the site based on the review of the TAC and is approved in the City PUD for the site. A cruise ship terminal at this location also helps protect deep water for larger ships. CONDITIONS: The conditions for construction of the 45 slip marina in association with the cruise ship terminal are as follows:

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 68  The design of this marina may not conflict with the existing boat ramp at the Canton Waterfront Park. The marina must provide a minimum of one-hundred feet clearance from the boat launch area to the nearest marina slip.  The marina design conflicts with the large storm drain outfall from Clinton Street. This storm drain carries significant volumes of flow during storm events, and will damage boats at the marina without special design considerations. The marina design must be changed to show that the facility will not interfere with the flow of stormwater nor will the stormwater damage the marina.  The location of the proposed marina in relation to the storm drain outfall from Clinton Street may create a sedimentation and trash problem at the marina. The flow of water from the storm drain may interact with the marina structure creating an increase in sedimentation. In addition, the marina slips will likely trap trash from the outfall. The proposed marina design must take these issues into account.  If the proposed marina displaces the existing facilities for the Department of Public Works and Marine Police, those facilities must be accommodated elsewhere. The new location must be approved by the City.  The Technical Advisory Committee also approved the extension of the pier head line for the cruise ship terminal because this design will increase the safety of docking large ships at this location. The pier head line may not be extended for construction of a recreational marina.

14) EAST HARBOR MARINE REPAIR & DRY STORAGE MARINA FACILITIES

PROPOSAL: Create a Dry Storage Marina/Boatel on a pier on Clinton Street at an active deep-water shipping location. The proposed use would maintain an active deep water shipping birth, placing the dry-storage marina and repair facilities on the south side of the pier.

VOTE: Approve with Conditions REASON: The use maintains the active deep water shipping operation at the site, while creatively solving the conflict between recreational boats and commercial ships by using trained, licensed delivery personnel. The conditions imposed for approval of the facility are listed in Section 3, Canton.

15) EAST HARBOR MARINE HARBOR HELIPORT PROPOSAL: Place a heliport on the end of an industrial pier on Clinton Street. VOTE: Deny REASON: The TAC determined that the heliport would displace an active deep-water shipping operation and remove the piers from use as a deep-water shipping site. A heliport cannot operate at an active shipping berth. The Master Plan has consistently stated that deep water shipping locations must be preserved.

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 69

16) PORT COVINGTON RECREATIONAL MARINA PROPOSAL: Re-establish a 400 slip recreational marina designated at the site originally in the 1989 Plan.

VOTE: Approve with Conditions REASON: The TAC determined that a recreational marina had previously been approved at the site and should be given serious consideration again. However, due to changes in land uses at the site and nearby, restrictions and conditions were needed for the marina’s design to assure maximum navigational safety. The details of the conditions are included in Section 3, Port Covington/South Locust Point.

2011 Baltimore Maritime Master Plan 70

City of Baltimore Department of Planning Division of Research & Strategic Planning 417 E. Fayette St. 8th Floor Baltimore, MD 21202 (410) 396-7526